Re: Work and the economy

[G. Stewart]

Title: Re: Work and the economy

I'm sorry Brian, in my reply to you I chose to respond only the second part of your posting, on Paulo Friere, because I didn't have anything much to say on the first part - I pretty much agreed with it, although with a qualification in my turn.   People with access to the media sometimes coin or use a word that  becomes repeated throughout the media. This says nothing though, I think, about whether we need accept it. In fact, even with respect to terrorism, I've talked with many people in recent weeks who have had various interpretations of the word, including bullying in the schoolyards, profiling of visible minorities, threatening people with loss of jobs or reputation, kidnapping, etc. -- almost anything on the spectrum of actions intended to generate "fear."  So my agreement with your comment was qualified. Yes the rich do have some power but I'm not sure it is necessarily the power of the word: sometimes the word is just cover for actions that are going to be pursued under whatever name. Your example of words used by government, e.g. in education, that have regulatory effect is a good example of the latter I think. Even if the teachers in Ontario were to change their name to educators, it seems likely that they would face a regulatory regime where words are being used to control. This is the way positive law works, through words.  However, just as work is more than employment, positive law is not the only form of law we use. (Also, I remind myself that that government was elected twice, its platform apparently developed in anger, and am saddened.)    I like it that we are talking on this list about language per se. I think that it is only as we begin to take responsibility for our use of language that we will be able to temper some of the risks I believe humanity is taking in our relations with each other, generating fear and humiliation and anger among us, by words that may lead to unfortunate deeds. Making language transparent so we can see and appreciate its varied uses and it limitations, could be a big step forward for humankind. Language has proved to be a very powerful invention.   Regards,   Gail       Gail Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian McAndrews To: G. Stewart Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 2:56 PM Subject: Re: Work and the economy Hi Gail, I think we have to go back to my qualifier: Gail wrote:  I think we all have that privilege although the rich and powerful may have better access to leverage in making their definitions known, but even they cannot force acceptance of their decisions.) I replied: Hi Gail, It is good to have you contributing to this list again. As to the section of  your posting that is copied above, I agree with you with one major qualifier. Let me start with an example: the word 'terrorism'. When the rich and powerful(George W and friends) define this concept to suit their purposes it has huge very pragmatic consequences. Enough said? Do you accept my qualifier? Perhaps enough wasn't said. The Mike Harris government in Ontario has fundamentally redefined what it means to be a teachers in Ontario by introducing standardized tests, standardized report cards, standardized curriculum, standardized permanent probation for teachers. They create a teacher regulatory body called The College of Teachers and then ignore anything it 'defines' if they don't like it. I don't think it is a stretch to say that many teachers are feeling alienated, so too nurses. Marilyn Waring in her NFB film "Sex, Lies and Economics" describes how the definition of GDP by governments alienates care givers. The definition of what it meant to be a person did not include women a hundred years ago. The suffragettes didn't like this alienation. Take care, Brian