G
Guest
Guest
Excerpt from longer article (url below):
Secret Names - David Mamet (Threepenny Review, Winter 2004)
If we say that "the government" has "lowered the threat level," we must mean that the government is in charge of the threat. Semantically, what else is the meaning of this "color code"? One cannot act differently on a day coded red than on one coded orange, and indeed no one even suggests that one can. We are urged to "be more vigilant," but the phrase cannot be acted upon. He who defends everything defends nothing, as Napoleon said.
So semantically—that is, as judged by the way in which words influence thought and so action—the proclamation of the threat level is an admission that there is no threat. Or that if a threat exists, the government is powerless to deal with it. And that those who accept the reiteration of the threat level have submitted, like the employee who accepts docilely her new pet name, and are thenceforward complicit in their own manipulation, daily trading submission first for an abatement of anxiety and, as time goes by, for painful and shameful self-examination.
A public relations genius insisted that the Warner Brothers cable network be referred to as The WB. For as we do it, we are theirs.
The construction itself has no special meaning, it is simply an obeisance, and as such is in fact more powerful for the absence of content. As this obeisance passes, like "Sold American," from the conscious into the automatic, we no longer recognize its provenance; it becomes a habit.
I instance the phrase "weapons of mass destruction." This formulation is overlong, clunky, and obviously confected. This is not to say that this or that dictator, or indeed well-meaning soul, may or does not possess such tools. But the formulation itself is unwieldy and, to the American ear, unfortunate. It is the cadence of "I'm not going to tell you again." Rhyth-mically, it is a scold. And its constant enforced repetition by the newscasters (you will note that the people in the street do not use it often, and then with little ease), its very awkwardness, ensures that the phrase, and thus its reference, pass beyond the borders of consideration. Like The WB.
For our mind tends toward the creation of habit. And the choice, faced with the unacceptable phrase, is this: constant, vigilant, unpopular opposition, or habitual acceptance. We submit in order to avoid the burden of hypocrisy.
I will recommend to the interested Bruno Bettleheim's writings on the Nazi salute.
Similarly, homeland security is a concept close to all of our hearts. We live in a wonderful country, which has for years enjoyed a blessed freedom from attack. The phrase "Homeland Security," however, is confected and rings false, for America has many nicknames. The Vietnam servicemen referred to it as The World; we might call it, lovingly, the U. S. of A. Many of us have thrilled to the immigration officer who stamps our passports and says, "Welcome home," a true act of graciousness. But none of us has ever referred to our country as The Homeland. It is a European construction, as Die Heimat, or The Motherland, or Das Vaterland. There is nothing wrong with the phrase; I merely state that it is confected, it is not a naturally occurring American phrase, and it rings false. And as it rings false, we, correctly or not, will question the motives of those who created it for our benefit. As we do the "coalition of the willing."
3Penny Review
Secret Names - David Mamet (Threepenny Review, Winter 2004)
If we say that "the government" has "lowered the threat level," we must mean that the government is in charge of the threat. Semantically, what else is the meaning of this "color code"? One cannot act differently on a day coded red than on one coded orange, and indeed no one even suggests that one can. We are urged to "be more vigilant," but the phrase cannot be acted upon. He who defends everything defends nothing, as Napoleon said.
So semantically—that is, as judged by the way in which words influence thought and so action—the proclamation of the threat level is an admission that there is no threat. Or that if a threat exists, the government is powerless to deal with it. And that those who accept the reiteration of the threat level have submitted, like the employee who accepts docilely her new pet name, and are thenceforward complicit in their own manipulation, daily trading submission first for an abatement of anxiety and, as time goes by, for painful and shameful self-examination.
A public relations genius insisted that the Warner Brothers cable network be referred to as The WB. For as we do it, we are theirs.
The construction itself has no special meaning, it is simply an obeisance, and as such is in fact more powerful for the absence of content. As this obeisance passes, like "Sold American," from the conscious into the automatic, we no longer recognize its provenance; it becomes a habit.
I instance the phrase "weapons of mass destruction." This formulation is overlong, clunky, and obviously confected. This is not to say that this or that dictator, or indeed well-meaning soul, may or does not possess such tools. But the formulation itself is unwieldy and, to the American ear, unfortunate. It is the cadence of "I'm not going to tell you again." Rhyth-mically, it is a scold. And its constant enforced repetition by the newscasters (you will note that the people in the street do not use it often, and then with little ease), its very awkwardness, ensures that the phrase, and thus its reference, pass beyond the borders of consideration. Like The WB.
For our mind tends toward the creation of habit. And the choice, faced with the unacceptable phrase, is this: constant, vigilant, unpopular opposition, or habitual acceptance. We submit in order to avoid the burden of hypocrisy.
I will recommend to the interested Bruno Bettleheim's writings on the Nazi salute.
Similarly, homeland security is a concept close to all of our hearts. We live in a wonderful country, which has for years enjoyed a blessed freedom from attack. The phrase "Homeland Security," however, is confected and rings false, for America has many nicknames. The Vietnam servicemen referred to it as The World; we might call it, lovingly, the U. S. of A. Many of us have thrilled to the immigration officer who stamps our passports and says, "Welcome home," a true act of graciousness. But none of us has ever referred to our country as The Homeland. It is a European construction, as Die Heimat, or The Motherland, or Das Vaterland. There is nothing wrong with the phrase; I merely state that it is confected, it is not a naturally occurring American phrase, and it rings false. And as it rings false, we, correctly or not, will question the motives of those who created it for our benefit. As we do the "coalition of the willing."
3Penny Review
