February 11, 2023
Good morning, friends.
We are in the midst of our third winter in Florida. I am now at the point when I would be dismayed at the prospect of not being able to leave Minnesota every year for an extended period in the winter. I am sometimes puzzled that more of our friends—who have both the means and the leisure (i.e., they are retired)—don't go somewhere warmer for a period. It wouldn't have to be Florida; there are other warm parts of the U.S., especially if you like desert climates, and other countries that have attractive winter climates.
There is much I love about Minnesota, and we would not consider moving away permanently, but as I've gotten older, I've learned that I can do without the snow and ice and cold and the gray and brown landscape for a few weeks. And without the risk of slipping and falling on icy steps and sidewalks.
I know that some people have commitments revolving around grandchildren, and leaving for an extended period would put a considerable burden on the parents of the grandchildren, so I suppose it's understandable that they would not become snowbirds. Others may have medical conditions and want to remain close to their health care providers, or may not be mobile enough to live elsewhere for an extended period. Some weirdos may actually like the cold and snow. But for the rest?
* * *
I sent this proposal to a number of friends.
The reactions were interesting and diverse.
"I think that the idea and effort are noble ones but I think I will revert to my habitual phrases when the situation arises." (attorney
"I agree with all of that. Language matters and no meaning is lost with the nonviolent suggestions." (attorney)
"The [suggested phrases] eliminate the violence in the idiomatic and stock “Instead of” figures, but most are feeble, vague, or inept, like “feeding two birds with one scone” (amusing but still inept). I doubt whether the violence in the stock phrases contributes to actual violence in society, and they have a certain vividness and vigor lost in toning down and euphemizing. The [suggested phrases] sound like the product of ChatGPT and its kin." (academic)
"Very interesting and noble idea. Reading through your list, I would say that most of those 'violent phrases' have become idioms that will be difficult to overcome since they have become somewhat "automatic" expressions. Worth an effort, however!" (academic)
"I like it. Gentler discourse." (academic)
"I do not think the 'violent' language engenders violence. Unless, of course, data support [the claim that gentler language leads to gentler behavior]. I think we have bigger fish to fry in this society." (attorney)
"I've been purposely avoiding killing two birds for some time now. . . . I didn't want to think about killing birds with stones!! The imagery bothered me. I do like these suggestions. Words and language do matter." (academic)
"Sometimes I regret that I use violence related expressions so these offer better options. Except the feeding the birds with a scone!" (academic)
"I do notice myself trying to move away from some of these kinds of idioms, especially the ones related to guns or killing. For instance, as a longtime birdwatcher, I long ago excised “kill two birds with one stone” from my everyday figures of speech. Knowing that the US is such an outlier among other developed countries in terms of gun violence, it seems obvious that gun culture is to some extent baked into the American psyche. I think there’s value in trying to reprogram ourselves.
On the other hand, the list is padded with some that I find pretty innocuous. “Bite the bullet” doesn’t refer to inflicting violence exactly—at least I’ve always assumed it refers to a legendary way of distracting a patient from some kind of painful surgery or extraction, in the Wild West I suppose. “Jump the gun” refers to a harmless cap gun shot off to signal the start of a race. “Not a bad idea” is back-handed, but sometimes warranted. (And how about “back-handed”? I think of tennis, but one could call to mind a back-hand slap.)
I’d say, pick your battles. (Or should I say, pick your inappropriate anachronisms.)" (academic)
"Sometimes I get very tired of trying to be so PC." (academic)
"I'm for being more thoughtful (mindful?) about the language we use as a general goal, but not excited about all-out language policing. It was interesting to me that the objectionable phrases were so heavily masculine in the traditional/stereotypical sense and so violent if taken literally. We could certainly do with less of that. It got me to thinking about the role of language in occupational culture and socialization, which is a very interesting sub-field of sociology. Many occupations have been studied for their cultures and vocabularies, including police work. It would help a lot, in my view, if police officers would learn to talk more like social workers. And behave more like social workers for that matter!" (academic)
"I have never been a supporter
of this kind of language restructuring. Language is all arbitrary to begin
with. Tone and intent are what really matter. Policing how people articulate
their feelings does not change said feelings." (private sector)
"Half the time I’d be in the Red list and half in the Green! I’d put this discussion in the overkill pile. :-)" (attorney)
"Well, I agree it would be good if we had no violence in our society, but I can't see that replacing metaphors with literal statements enriches the language. Even though a lot of the originals have become clichés, they are still more evocative than the substitutes. And by the way, "jump the gun" is not violent. It means starting before the starter's pistol (which fires blanks)." (academic)
Among my first reactions to the list was, "I think this is the woke culture that is winning votes for DeSantis in Florida." One of my friends responded along that line: "I think the entire notion is ridiculous, but then I’m sure I’m the least 'woke' person you know." (private sector) I hope that no candidate for political office whom I support ever brings up these examples; the reaction among many voters would be guffaws and contempt.
Another thought that occurred to me was that this is Orwellian, although the aim is different from the words and phrases in 1984.
I agree that "Feed two birds with one scone" is inept and it sounds stupid. "Choose our opportunities" does not mean anywhere near the same things as "pick your battles." Almost the opposite. Opportunities are usually considered positive; "pick your battles" addresses situations (e.g., in a marriage) where you have to decide to quarrel or dispute or disagree. I have told Elliott any number of times over his life that he has to pick his battles: what's it worth going to the mat for (another violent phrase!) and what's not worth bothering about?
I had never thought of "deadline" as violent, but upon looking up its etymology, I learned that it certainly was in its origin:
First recorded in 1864, the word ‘deadline’ has its origins in the American Civil War. During time of conflict, a ‘do not cross’ line was circled around prisons. Guards were told to shoot and kill any prisoner who might touch, fall upon, pass over, under or across the said ‘dead line’.
This type of ‘dead line’ is attributed to an infamously cruel Confederate Army officer Heinrich Hartmann Wirz. Accounts report of how “Wirz, still wickedly pursuing his evil purpose, did establish and cause to be designated within the prison enclosure… a ‘dead line’”.
By the 1920s the word was adopted into journalism jargon and had evolved to mean: “time limit” – something well known to journalists and content marketers alike.
So my reaction, like that of several of you, is mixed. Some of the suggestions are sensible but some of them strike me as silly (or just inaccurate in the attribution of violence).
* * *
While on the topic of words, the Scottish word "ken" is one I find recurringly useful; it's defined as "the range of perception, understanding, or knowledge" and "to understand or perceive (an idea or situation)." I have used the term about myself as I listen to classical music: How a composer hears in his or her head the multiple instruments of an orchestra and writes musical notes for all of them to play at the same time is beyond my ken (e.g., a Beethoven symphony).
There are some elements of culture (e.g., painting, fiction writing) that I can understand even if I can't do them with any degree of skill. For example, I can conceive—I ken—how Frank Herbert could have developed the complex story that he did in Dune. What is far beyond my ability is development of intricate and fabulous plots and settings and characters. Likewise, I can understand how Gainsborough painted "The Blue Boy" but I could never do anything even faintly like that (which is why I settle for paint-by-numbers). In both these cases, I'm not sure Gladwell's 10,000 hours would help. In the case of painting, Elliott has a rare ability to capture people in his portraits; I doubt seriously I could do that no matter how hard I tried to learn.
* * *
I was quite proud of myself for having advanced into 20th-century technology: earbuds. When I am working on one of my paint-by-numbers, at home I have my own studio (aka Elliott's bedroom), and with speakers set up, I can listen to MPR through an old radio that Kathy had. We do not have the luxury of an extra room in Florida, so MPR would have to play off my cell phone. Not only does that disrupt whatever Kathy might want to listen to, the sound quality from a cell phone, at least for classical music, is dreadful. So Kathy got me a pair of earbuds. The sound still comes from my cell phone but the quality is excellent. Not like sitting in the concert hall, but more than adequate for my purposes.
* * *
Kathy and I recently talked briefly about when we might move to a place where all the living functions are on one floor.
That led me to think about house versus home, house and home. One's house is a physical structure, one's home is the environment in that structure where (one hopes) you are safe, secure, and happy—or happy at least most of the time. (For these purposes, "house" is apartment, condo, townhouse, single family home, or whatever other built environment one might live in.)
I am sure that for most people, a house is a building we occupy for some period and then move on to the next phase of our life. Sometimes we live in them for short periods (e.g., the dorm room or apartment when in college), sometimes for long periods (e.g., me for now 34 years in our house, other friends who've also lived in their houses for over 30 years). Some of us move multiple times during our adult lives, usually because of career advancement or change, so live in a number of different houses.
For the most part, I suspect, when one leaves a house in which one has lived a long time, or one's parents sell the house that you grew up in, there is a twinge of loss. I know I felt that way when my parents sold the house I grew up in. But the sentiment passes quickly and we get on with life in our new abode. For those who moved frequently during their adult years (or during their childhood years, for that matter), a house is just a house and one has no particular attachment to it when one departs.
My case may be slightly different. In 1940 my great-aunt and great-uncle Inez and Orv bought the house I live in now. They had no children. My grandmother, Inez's sister, had one child, my mother. (Inez and my grandmother had 12 older siblings, but none of them remained in Minnesota.) My mother was the apple of Inez's (and Orv's) eye, a substitute child, in a way. My mother would visit Inez and Orv when she was a teenager living in Zumbrota (they bought the house when my mom was 12). My grandmother was married (second marriage) to a man my father called a "horse's ass" at the time my parents got married, a man my mother disliked a great deal, so Orv is the one who walked her down the aisle at her wedding. Inez and Orv gave my parents a full set of sterling silver flatware service for eight, a considerable gift in 1949.
When I was born—my parents' first child—of course my mother brought her new baby to visit her favorite aunt and uncle. As the baby grew into childhood, he (I) followed in his mother's footsteps and would visit Inez and Orv for a weekend or two per year. Inez taught me to play cribbage, would take me to lunch at high-end places like Charlie's, Harry's, etc. (in a cab, since Orv drove their only car to work), and she bought me a three-piece suit when I was about three or four years old. I think I became the apple of their eye, or second apple.
So, my story is that I've been in this house since I was born, first as child guest, then as company as an adult, and then as homeowner for the past third of a century, and it's also the place where my children were raised. Elliott knew no other home until he moved to an apartment with a friend in his mid-20s.
Selling this house will be difficult for me.
Warm wishes to you.
Gary
No comments:
Post a Comment