There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your … approach
One of the aspects of working life that I really, really loathe is the feeble-minded misuse of language that business people in general and marketing departments in particular these days assume to be acceptable. Every time I read about such-and-such company’s “philosophy” or am told about the “learnings” that can or could or should be taken from something-or-other I die a small death – as does our mother tongue. Why is it that words such as “philosophy” incorrectly appear when the misuser is actually looking for “approach”, or solecisms such as “learnings” have been invented and are now regarded as de rigueur in the business world when we’ve had the perfectly good word “lessons” available to us all along? My guess is that such misuses, along with truly horrible and stupid cliches involving people actually thinking *outside* boxes—when the hell did anyone ever think inside the bloody things?—were invented with the intention of bestowing on the misuser some sort of gravitas, or of lending a concept or product or whatever some sort of extra allure on account of its having not just an approach but also a “philosophy”. Ooh, impressive! The actual effect is of course the opposite; such lazy misuse suggests nothing other than a lack of energy or effort or will to bother to try to be imaginative or even correct with one’s use of language. It is depressing and horrible. Please do not lazily discard your rubbish in the wonderful landscape of our language; please pick it up and put it in a bin and then close the lid.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
In absolute agreement. And as you know the invention of ‘learnings’ is a particular peeve of mine. Don’t get me started on ‘Key Learnings’ – especially when used as a title in Powerpoint. In addition I find the biggest offenders are the comms/advertising/media/digital/social people. Lets get things into perspective! Philosophy? Really?
Yes, really, and absolutely. If a company actually said something along the lines of “our philosophy is centred on making for our shareholders as much profit as possible by selling our product whether it is needed or not. We are prepared to do this at a human cost to our customers, our employees, the macro-economic systems that sustain the global economy and if necessary the environment. Our approach is so fundamentally to fleece the shit out of whomever we can that it may indeed be described as a philosophy. We acknowledge this with our individual consciences. This encapsulates and represents our considered view of what is fundamental in life” then I’d be prepared to accede that the organisation was genuinely trying to present an honest, philosophical appraisal of its endeavours. But that never happens. The attempt by marketing departments to cripple the meaning of the word philosophy should, I agree, be examined in stark perspective.
I agree that the trend towards self-important and inscrutable jargon is horrible. But on the other hand, language is constantly evolving, although you may see it as regressing, depending on your point of view. As someone who loves experimenting with it, I’ll always assert my right to fuck with language as much as I want. Because it doesn’t belong to anyone, it belongs to everyone. So, yeah I agree with your point, to a point.
By the way. Great to see you back on Twitter Damian!
I totally agree with your response, Martin. Language evolves—that’s its thrill—just as, for example, scientific thinking evolves to create new ideas or discover new phenomena. But just as mathematics has its fundamental structure, so language has its grammar. Black holes were not discovered on the basis of 1=1 being re-cast as 1=2, and the great literary explorers have similarly respected what we have and invented on top of it.
And when you fuck with language, which you do very, very entertainingly, I’ve never seen you try to tell anyone that 1=2.
Damn you Stafford! You had to bring maths into it! You know it’s my kryptonite. I guess what we’re both saying is we hate bad writing. George Orwell’s great skill was using simple language to explain complex ideas, whereas bad writing makes a virtue of complexity at the expense of clarity.
Yes, I think we’re saying just that. Orwell is a great example of a writer who built on top of what we have, as is Anthony Burgess. The former invented “newspeak” to illustrate just how dishonestly our language can be used, and the latter riffed brilliantly, inventing a new lingo based on English, Russian and fuck-knows what else. And in another vein Kingsley Amis used language traditionally and got more humour and meaning in to his sentences that most writers have managed in a page. And Vonnegut, among more significant successes, hilariously denied the validity of the semi-colon. And then there’s the likes of Flann O’Brien, whom I love, and Joyce, and Steinbeck. They all fucked about majestically with the raw materials without having to cripple the meaning—the molecular structure—of any of them.
Hey, we should set up a book club in work. I never get to talk books with anyone.
I’m in.
I take issue with your (the author’s) assertion that the effect of using bullshit-speak is opposite from the one intended. To you, maybe. But bullshit peddlers can and do impress each other with this kind of talk.
A lot of the goods, services and people currently on offer–I’d say most–are mediocre at best, a fact that has to be covered up somehow. People must be distracted from the low quality of whatever’s being pimped to them and an easy way to distract them is to say “ideate” and “comfortize the stakeholders” and “paradigm shift” and “going forward.” You and Martin rightfully brought Orwell in. “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms[...]”
When you sell crap, you have to talk crap, so you hire, or associate with, someone who speaks the language. The candidate who can bullshit his way through an interview or presentation will be picked by these people. So, in that way, it works.
Very nice post. Makes me feel less lonely.
Thank you Cristian, for your interesting angle on the topic. With a heavy heart I agree that you are correct to suggest there’s a whole, self-validating, self-worshiping, self-perpetuating guff-machine that earns itself a living from brutalising and then murdering language. I particularly like your pithy comment “When you sell crap, you have to talk crap”.