I love words. I love their simultaneous clarity and their inherent potential for confusion (especially in English). There is, at one and the same time, a beauty to a word's simple, direct meaning, and a potential for darkness in their possible connotations. Nothing gives me so much joy as to see words that bring understanding, that sweep away confusion, and that brush away the fog. And nothing - not a damn thing - makes me as mad as words intentionally used to muddle meaning, to manipulate, and to mislead. Sometimes, similar muddled meaning and misdirection can be unintentional - unskilled speakers, or people who believe their profession requires more language rather than clearer language. I don't blame them. I do find them frustrating, and I know many others do as well.
So, for that reason, there's a new thing I want to start doing here with a series of posts I'm calling "The (Un)-Ravel." One skill I know for certain that I have is an ability to take complex or ambiguous (or intentionally disingenuous) words and make the meaning behind them understandable. What often happens in the process is that what I am making clear are errors (unintentional or intentional) in thinking.
On social media, I've often posted such things - analysis of someone's communication or statements to try to suss out what is the message behind them, or the problems buried in them. I posted an analysis of a decision written by Justice Alito, an analysis posted of an argument supporting gun rights posted by a family member, and several others - all received with enthusiasm by people who found them to be helpful in clarifying their own thinking about the issues.
I love doing this - not to rile anyone up, not to take anyone down, but to try to make clarity and (please God, I'm begging for this) clear thinking more of a priority in the way we receive and process information. Note
that I did not say "critical thinking." I used the term "clear thinking" instead for two reasons. A) the term 'critical thinking' is embroiled in and therefore has its meaning muddled by a great deal of dissension and debate about its validity in education, making the term so weighed down with connotations it loses its usefulness; and B) 'critical thinking' comes nowhere near being accurately descriptive of what those who use it mean by it. "Clear thinking" is, to my mind, much more descriptive of my goal.
Note that the majority of posts I put here will still be about what they have always been - the various reflections, incidents, and skills a writer uses to find her way in her work. The "(Un)-Ravel" posts will always be titled with that identification, and will likely be much less frequent, as un-raveling what someone is saying and/or arguing takes quite a bit of time when their original language is unclear.
For each (Un)-Ravel, I will take some public writing or speech or article, and give it that kind of shake-down, taking out and disposing of the dirt and mud that only obscures meaning to see what we have left. First up will be (coming SOON) an un-raveling of the words of US Attorney General William Barr in two
places - his written opening statement for the US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, and an interview he did with NPR, in both settings where he appears to deny the existence of systemic racism, and makes broad statements about the causes of crime, the causes of police brutality, and the appropriate role of law enforcement. That un-raveling is currently in progress and should be coming soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment