of words and presentation

This entry is a prelude to my next entry which wanted to incorporate an idea I had in a university English Composition class far too long ago. I didn't save much of my college work, as it wasn't worth keeping, but this class - and in particular, the instructor, really inspired me. I think I was taking a course in rhetoric contemporaneously, so my thoughts were clearly informed by that.

Through the magic of Optical Character recognition - and Knuth's "Computer Modern Roman" font -  resurrecting my old composition from paper was a trivial effort. I've included it here as an historical artifact. It was written so, so long ago, with a prose style that one would expect of an undergraduate. I've resisted the temptation to revise it so you - gentle reader - may simply wish to skip it and wait for the next post which really does have something to say and will excerpt a couple of sentences from the essay below the fold.

I'm also trying to forget that my copy of this essay has begun to yellow around the edges.


Of Words and Presentation

Matt Wartell
Writing Assignment 2 January 31, 1989

Doug Rice
English Comp 005 (FCL)

In his article The Nuclear Winter, Sagan attempts to do what Amis and Postman say is impossible in their respective texts, Introduction: Thinkability and Megatons for Anthromegs. Sagan tries to talk rationally about nuclear threat, and despite the protests of Amis and Postman, manages to do so fairly well. The reason the protests do not fully apply to Sagan’s case is that Sagan conducts his argument outside the boundaries of discourse described by Amis and Postman. This, of course, does not show Amis and Postman to be wrong, but only limits the extent of their arguments. As a demonstration, I will show the central arguments of Amis and Postman, carefully delineating their boundaries, and then show in what manner Sagan circumvents these roadblocks.

Postman’s article Megatons for Anthromegs appears to be the clearest of the texts. It is an outright satire of the current, highly euphemistic political rhetoric. By juxtaposing extant terms about nuclear weapons with ambiguous ‘nice’ words, Postman satirically shows that switching lexicons does not change the underlying situation. The form of his presentation would not be complete, however, without the brief text Etiquette immediately preceding Megatons.

In the seemingly unrelated discussion of automated highway tollbooths of Etiquette, Postman establishes a base frame for reading Megatons. The grounding is not at all clear upon first or even second reading; on its own, Etiquette is an amusing anecdote and minor fantasy. There is even an enigmatic preface to Etiquette which does not reference it at all, but is directed toward Megatons. It is this ‘misplaced’ preface that was my first clue: Postman really intends for the two texts to be read as a coherent whole. Etiquette concentrates on the responses that automatic toll­taking machines provide upon receiving a toll:

“[e]ach basket has an appendage that has been programmed to flash ‘Thank you’ after the motorist has performed her civic duty ... After you’ve retrieved the coin and thrown it in, the basket’s appendage still says ‘Thank you’ but unquestionably the remark now has a sarcastic ring. . .” (Postman, 24).

What really concerns Postman is the machine’s use of language without intentionality; that is, the basket’s response really carries no content only a superficial resemblance to meaning. As a base, Etiquette provides for the intended interpretation of Megatons.

In Megatons, Postman presents his aforementioned new lexicon, now in the light of Etiquette. Postrnan’s intent is now clearer; he wants to show how modern political rhetoric tries to strip words of their intentionality, and therefore bolster thinkability (more on this later). Unfortunately, for the rhetoricians, and fortunately for Postman, this attempted stripping rarely works in the long run. The switch to emotionally neutral terms, and subsequent failure has been seen many times. In the United States, over the last 30 years, a group of people have changed from ‘colored’ to ‘black’ to ‘African-American’. These changes have been inspired by the negative connotations of the old label, and the hope that the new term, initially free of connotations, will remain neutral. What has happened is that the neutral term does pick up the negative properties of the old term, and no change is effected. Similar effects have been observed with the change from ‘crippled’ to ‘handicapped’ and the pending ‘disabled’ (NPR, January 1989). In the short run, however, the nuclear euphemisms can generate a number of further euphemistic statements about survivability. It is these corollaries that Martin Amis addresses in Introduction: Thinkability. Citing official British civil defense literature, Amis points out the silliness that springs from this use of language:

Language cannot live with this reality. “It is important to have a good supply of painkillers ...tranquilizers will be important...psychological problems in a nuclear war ...health problems in a. nuclear war . . .” Is problems really the word we want? Well, there will be extinction problems too. (Amis, 19; his italics and ellipses)

Amis’ contempt does not stop with the light use of the word ‘problem’, he displays the silliness of the “All Clear” sirens, “all clear for what?)” (Amis 18), and many other abuses of the language. What Amis wants is a clear, unanimous admission of the implications of nuclear war: “How long will it take us to grasp that nuclear weapons are not weapons, that they are slashed wrists, gas-filled rooms, global booby traps?” (Amis, 19). In this type of statement, though, Amis commits the same error as those he accuses, albeit in the opposite direction. Citing the military writers for their misuse of metaphor to downplay the issue, Amis uses his own metaphor to evoke a strong negative emotional response. Amis cannot seem to discuss the subject without anger.

Sagan tries to give a scientific account of one the the effects of nuclear war, the so-called ‘nuclear winter’. The form of this text is radically different from the others. First, the reprinting of the article starts with a biographic paragraph about Sagan, establishing him as an authority. Neither Amis or Postman give any grounds for their position other than personal opinion. Second, the text is almost a dispassionate account of the experimental and simulation data that Sagan and others have collected, contrasting with the vague inferences and pontification of (particularly) Amis. By eschewing emotion laden words or meaningless euphemisms, Sagan presents a far more rational case than Postman or Amis. By doing so, Sagan begins to sidestep the linguistic constraints that the others try to place on the domain of discourse.

Nevertheless, in pushing his own political agenda, Sagan lapses at times into the emotional rhetoric characteristic of Amis: “Some of what I am about to describe is horrifying. I know because it horrifies me” (Sagan, 7). This extrapolation from Sagan to the universe is self-defeating; if I fail to be horrified by his description, the credibility of his claims becomes questionable. The constraints imposed upon the language of nuclear threat does pose a substantial block to discussion. Sagan almost rises above this, but fails. Discourse free from such constraints is, in a sense, the unattained desiderata of the three authors.

Acknowledgements

• Amis, Martin. “Introduction: Thinkability” in Einstein’s Monsters.
• National Public Radio. (January 1988). “All Things Considered.”
• Postman, Neil. (1988). “Etiquette” in Conscientious Objections. New York: Knopf.
• Postman, Neil. (1988). “Megatons for Anthromegs” in Conscientious Objections. New York Knopf.
• Sagan, Carl. “The Nuclear Winter.