Words repeated too often can lose their sting
by Lindiwe Mazibuko,
2015-11-24 05:55:11.0
I WAS in New Haven, Connecticut, this weekend, dressed in Harvard Crimson for the American football match-up that represents the height of college rivalry in the US Ivy League: the Harvard-Yale game. Over a couple of ice-cold cans of Bud Light during the traditional pre-game tailgate — the US’s answer to the "vula boot" — one of my companions repeated an amusing observation about his alma mater’s football team, which implied they played like women.
I had already spit up my beer laughing when I felt compelled to point out that this amusing anecdote was sexist. "Please stop micro-aggressing me," I joked. To which he quipped, "I’m sorry, would you like some space to stage a sit-in?"
The exchange was darkly amusing not only because it poked fun at a disturbing truth, but also because the modern lexicon of social injustice is now so overused it is in danger of becoming a parody of itself.
There is a psychological term — semantic satiation — for our brain’s inability to hold on to the meaning of a word when it is repeated too many times. A 1960s study concluded that over time, the brain tires of the repetition until the word becomes little more than a jumble of meaningless letters and sounds.
Apparently our other senses have similar reactions to overexposure to the same stimulus, which is why my mother taught me never to "top up" my perfume during the course of the day. The nose becomes accustomed to the fragrance when you first apply it; over time, it becomes "bored" with the smell, rendering it imperceptible. You consequently perceive the need for reapplication, but by the end of the day, you are choking everybody who comes into contact with you with an overapplied scent that to you still seems perfectly understated.
We do a disservice to ourselves and to the cause of equality by repeating buzzwords about "white privilege" and "intersectionality" until they lose their meaning.
We also open up the debate space for ridicule, resistance and accusations that political correctness has indeed "gone mad". How, then, can we engage in debates about the structural realities of racism, sexism, homophobia and racial supremacy that will shift our society and our cultural norms in the direction of equality and justice?
Last Wednesday, students from more than 60 US universities participated in a nationwide protest against institutional racism in higher education under the banner #StudentBlackOut. The protests were a partial response to a series of incidents at the University of Missouri, such as the smearing of faeces in the shape of a swastika in the bathroom of one of the residences, which had gained national attention.
Students at each college submitted demands for change to their respective administrations. Some called for an increase in the percentage of black faculty on tenure-track; others demanded a plan of action from faculty heads to address the problem of racism on campus. And in a move reminiscent of #RhodesMustFall, students at Princeton demanded the renaming of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Policy & International Affairs.
At Yale, where protests were triggered by allegations that a fraternity had instituted a policy barring black women from its pre-Halloween festivities, the university president has announced plans to advance the study of race and ethnicity in the curriculum and to address issues of inclusion for students of colour.
On campuses across the US, a fierce debate is now raging about free speech and the right to offend and be offended. Those supporting the status quo have invoked the bogeyman of "political correctness" to argue that free speech and the constitutional right to offend are under threat on campuses that bow to the demands of black students who feel unsafe and unwelcome in their own institutions.
On the other hand, those calling for change are coming perilously close to thought-policing their own institutions; mistaking censorship for censure. A tension is building between the progressive causes of equality and social justice, and the temptation to close down debate and dictate the terms of academic enquiry.
In a country in which young black men are disproportionately criminalised and parents are forced to have disturbing conversations with their children about how society views them as a threat to be neutralised, it must surely be heartening when young black men and women find their voice and speak their truth. But as students express their pain and alienation and are finally heard, they should be careful not to exchange one tyranny for another.
• Mazibuko is a resident fellow of the Harvard Institute of Politics and former parliamentary leader of the Democratic Alliance
Students protest over planned increases in tuition fees in Stellenbosch in October. Picture: REUTERS
I WAS in New Haven, Connecticut, this weekend, dressed in Harvard Crimson for the American football match-up that represents the height of college rivalry in the US Ivy League: the Harvard-Yale game. Over a couple of ice-cold cans of Bud Light during the traditional pre-game tailgate — the US’s answer to the "vula boot" — one of my companions repeated an amusing observation about his alma mater’s football team, which implied they played like women.
I had already spit up my beer laughing when I felt compelled to point out that this amusing anecdote was sexist. "Please stop micro-aggressing me," I joked. To which he quipped, "I’m sorry, would you like some space to stage a sit-in?"
The exchange was darkly amusing not only because it poked fun at a disturbing truth, but also because the modern lexicon of social injustice is now so overused it is in danger of becoming a parody of itself.
There is a psychological term — semantic satiation — for our brain’s inability to hold on to the meaning of a word when it is repeated too many times. A 1960s study concluded that over time, the brain tires of the repetition until the word becomes little more than a jumble of meaningless letters and sounds.
Apparently our other senses have similar reactions to overexposure to the same stimulus, which is why my mother taught me never to "top up" my perfume during the course of the day. The nose becomes accustomed to the fragrance when you first apply it; over time, it becomes "bored" with the smell, rendering it imperceptible. You consequently perceive the need for reapplication, but by the end of the day, you are choking everybody who comes into contact with you with an overapplied scent that to you still seems perfectly understated.
We do a disservice to ourselves and to the cause of equality by repeating buzzwords about "white privilege" and "intersectionality" until they lose their meaning.
We also open up the debate space for ridicule, resistance and accusations that political correctness has indeed "gone mad". How, then, can we engage in debates about the structural realities of racism, sexism, homophobia and racial supremacy that will shift our society and our cultural norms in the direction of equality and justice?
Last Wednesday, students from more than 60 US universities participated in a nationwide protest against institutional racism in higher education under the banner #StudentBlackOut. The protests were a partial response to a series of incidents at the University of Missouri, such as the smearing of faeces in the shape of a swastika in the bathroom of one of the residences, which had gained national attention.
Students at each college submitted demands for change to their respective administrations. Some called for an increase in the percentage of black faculty on tenure-track; others demanded a plan of action from faculty heads to address the problem of racism on campus. And in a move reminiscent of #RhodesMustFall, students at Princeton demanded the renaming of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Policy & International Affairs.
At Yale, where protests were triggered by allegations that a fraternity had instituted a policy barring black women from its pre-Halloween festivities, the university president has announced plans to advance the study of race and ethnicity in the curriculum and to address issues of inclusion for students of colour.
On campuses across the US, a fierce debate is now raging about free speech and the right to offend and be offended. Those supporting the status quo have invoked the bogeyman of "political correctness" to argue that free speech and the constitutional right to offend are under threat on campuses that bow to the demands of black students who feel unsafe and unwelcome in their own institutions.
On the other hand, those calling for change are coming perilously close to thought-policing their own institutions; mistaking censorship for censure. A tension is building between the progressive causes of equality and social justice, and the temptation to close down debate and dictate the terms of academic enquiry.
In a country in which young black men are disproportionately criminalised and parents are forced to have disturbing conversations with their children about how society views them as a threat to be neutralised, it must surely be heartening when young black men and women find their voice and speak their truth. But as students express their pain and alienation and are finally heard, they should be careful not to exchange one tyranny for another.
• Mazibuko is a resident fellow of the Harvard Institute of Politics and former parliamentary leader of the Democratic Alliance
Change: -0.47%
Change: -0.57%
Change: -1.76%
Change: -0.34%
Change: 0.02%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: -1.49%
Change: 0.08%
Change: -0.47%
Change: 0.00%
Change: -0.04%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: -0.34%
Change: 0.03%
Change: -0.10%
Change: -0.22%
Change: -0.69%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: -0.28%
Change: -1.15%
Change: -0.07%
Change: -1.21%
Change: -0.22%
Data supplied by Profile Data