Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What If We Occupied Language?
When I flew out from the San Francisco airport last October, we crossed above the ports that Occupy Oakland helped shut down, and arrived in Germany to be met by traffic caused by Occupy Berlin protestors. But the movement has not only transformed public space, it has transformed the public discourse as well.
Occupy.
It is now nearly impossible to hear the word and not think of the Occupy movement.
Even as distinguished an expert as the lexicographer and columnist Ben Zimmer admitted as much this week: “occupy, ” he said, is the odds-on favorite to be chosen as the American Dialect Society’s Word of the Year.
It has already succeeded in shifting the terms of the debate, taking phrases like “debt-ceiling” and “budget crisis” out of the limelight and putting terms like “inequality” and “greed” squarely in the center. This discursive shift has made it more difficult for Washington to continue to promote the spurious reasons for the financial meltdown and the unequal outcomes it has exposed and further produced.
To most, the irony of a progressive social movement using the term “occupy” to reshape how Americans think about issues of democracy and equality has been clear. After all, it is generally nations, armies and police who occupy, usually by force. And in this, the United States has been a leader. The American government is just now after nine years ending its overt occupation of Iraq, is still entrenched in Afghanistan and is maintaining troops on the ground in dozens of countries worldwide. All this is not to obscure the fact that the United States as we know it came into being by way of an occupation — a gradual and devastatingly violent one that all but extinguished entire Native American populations across thousands of miles of land.
Dread Scott and Kyle Goen -- CLICK TO ENLARGEYet in a very short time, this movement has dramatically changed how we think about occupation. In early September, “occupy” signaled on-going military incursions. Now it signifies progressive political protest. It’s no longer primarily about force of military power; instead it signifies standing up to injustice, inequality and abuse of power. It’s no longer about simply occupying a space; it’s about transforming that space.
In this sense, Occupy Wall Street has occupied language, has made “occupy” its own. And, importantly, people from diverse ethnicities, cultures and languages have participated in this linguistic occupation — it is distinct from the history of forcible occupation in that it is built to accommodate all, not just the most powerful or violent.
As Geoff Nunberg, the long-time chair of the usage panel for American Heritage Dictionary, and others have explained, the earliest usage of occupy in English that was linked to protest can be traced to English media descriptions of Italian demonstrations in the 1920s, in which workers “occupied” factories until their demands were met. This is a far cry from some of its earlier meanings. In fact, The Oxford English Dictionary tells us that “occupy” once meant “to have sexual intercourse with.” One could imagine what a phrase like “Occupy Wall Street” might have meant back then.
In October, Zimmer, who is also the chair of the American Dialect Society’s New Word Committee, noted on NPR’s “On the Media” that the meaning of occupy has changed dramatically since its arrival into the English language in the 14th century. “It’s almost always been used as a transitive verb,” Zimmer said. “That’s a verb that takes an object, so you occupy a place or a space. But then it became used as a rallying cry, without an object, just to mean to take part in what are now called the Occupy protests. It’s being used as a modifier — Occupy protest, Occupy movement. So it’s this very flexible word now that’s filling many grammatical slots in the language.”
What if we transformed the meaning of occupy yet again? Specifically, what if we thought of Occupy Language as more than the language of the Occupy movement, and began to think about it as a movement in and of itself? What kinds of issues would Occupy Language address? What would taking language back from its self-appointed “masters” look like? We might start by looking at these questions from the perspective of race and discrimination, and answer with how to foster fairness and equality in that realm.
Orlando Arenas, Ernesto Yerena, Ricardo Lopez, Sandra Castro -- CLICK TO ENLARGEOccupy Language might draw inspiration from both the way that the Occupy movement has reshaped definitions of “occupy,” which teaches us that we give words meaning and that discourses are not immutable, and from the way indigenous movements have contested its use, which teaches us to be ever-mindful about how language both empowers and oppresses, unifies and isolates.
For starters, Occupy Language might first look inward. In a recent interview, Julian Padilla of the People of Color Working Group pushed the Occupy movement to examine its linguistic choices:
To occupy means to hold space, and I think a group of anti-capitalists holding space on Wall Street is powerful, but I do wish the NYC movement would change its name to “‘decolonise Wall Street”’ to take into account history, indigenous critiques, people of colour and imperialism… Occupying space is not inherently bad, it’s all about who and how and why. When white colonizers occupy land, they don’t just sleep there over night, they steal and destroy. When indigenous people occupied Alcatraz Island it was (an act of) protest.
This linguistic change can remind Americans that a majority of the 99 percent has benefited from the occupation of native territories.
Occupy Language might also support the campaign to stop the media from using the word “illegal” to refer to “undocumented” immigrants. From the campaign’s perspective, only inanimate objects and actions are labeled illegal in English; therefore the use of “illegals” to refer to human beings is dehumanizing. The New York Times style book currently asks writers to avoid terms like “illegal alien” and “undocumented,” but says nothing about “illegals.” Yet The Times’ standards editor, Philip B. Corbett, did recently weigh in on this, saying that the term “illegals” has an “unnecessarily pejorative tone” and that “it’s wise to steer clear.”
Pejorative, discriminatory language can have real life consequences. In this case, activists worry about the coincidence of the rise in the use of the term “illegals” and the spike in hate crimes against all Latinos. As difficult as it might be to prove causation here, the National Institute for Latino Policy reports that the F.B.I.’s annual Hate Crime Statistics show that Latinos comprised two thirds of the victims of ethnically motivated hate crimes in 2010. When someone is repeatedly described as something, language has quietly paved the way for violent action.
Melanie Cervantes -- CLICK TO ENLARGEBut Occupy Language should concern itself with more than just the words we use; it should also work towards eliminating language-based racism and discrimination. In the legal system, CNN recently reported that the U.S. Justice Department alleges that Arizona’s infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio, among other offenses, has discriminated against “Latino inmates with limited English by punishing them and denying critical services.” In education, as linguistic anthropologist Ana Celia Zentella notes, hostility towards those who speak “English with an accent” (Asians, Latinos, and African Americans) continues to be a problem. In housing, The National Fair Housing Alliance has long recognized “accents” as playing a significant role in housing discrimination. On the job market, language-based discrimination intersects with issues of race, ethnicity, class and national origin to make it more difficult for well-qualified applicants with an “accent” to receive equal opportunities.
In the face of such widespread language-based discrimination, Occupy Language can be a critical, progressive linguistic movement that exposes how language is used as a means of social, political and economic control. By occupying language, we can expose how educational, political, and social institutions use language to further marginalize oppressed groups; resist colonizing language practices that elevate certain languages over others; resist attempts to define people with terms rooted in negative stereotypes; and begin to reshape the public discourse about our communities, and about the central role of language in racism and discrimination.
- Posted in
33 Comments so far
Show AllI have often, continuously and repetitively called for a change in our language.
Don't use the MIC term 'War on Terror'.
It's the DAFT war that we are trying to stop. DAFT DAFT DAFT.
Occupy the language.
And rather than calling it the Department of Homeland Security, call it the Department of Enhanced Corporate Welfare for the Military Industrial Complex.
"Department of Defense" needs to be occupied back to "War Department".
My pet peeve is "elite" much too positive of a term for "bloated wealth"
Seconded. I have always considered the term "elite" to refer to something admirable and not to the grasping, deceitful bunch of sociopaths who run the company store known as the USA.
As any rhetorican since ancient Athens will teach on the first day of class: those who determine the language of the debate have the advantage. Ever since the rise of Grandpa Caligula (Reagan), this has been cravenly ceded by the American Left on an almost universal level. Occupy Wall Street has put paid to that for the moment, and now is the time for progressives to maximize this cultural opportunity and continue to put the corporate media shills (particularly those in the employ of Rupert Murdoch @ Fox Noise Channel) on the rhetorical defensive. This is a rare opportunity that should not be pissed away.
" Occupy language can be a critical, progressive linguistic movement that exposes how language is used as a means of social, political and economic control ". Yes, no doubt about it, our language has become Orwellian, propaganda for the 1%. Support the troops; thank you for your service; we are bringing them freedom and democracy; we need to fight them over there, so we do not have to fight them here; the war on drugs; the war on terror; we are bringing stability to their country; ad nauseum.
Translation: Support the troops so they can keep on supporting and killing for the Empire; thank you for your service to the 1%; we are bringing them death and destruction so the war profiteers have the freedom to make billions of $ ; we have a bogeyman called al-Qaeda to scare the hell out of you; the war on who controls the drugs; the war on terror is an asinine, oxymoron, because that means we should have a war on the U.S., the #1 terrorist in the world! We need to bring stability to that country, so that the 1% and the MIC can exploit their resources. The brainwashing never stops.
"Yes, no doubt about it, our language has become Orwellian, propaganda for the 1%."
"Our friends" - such as Egypt's Mubarak, Nicaragua's Somoza, Chile's Pinochet, etc, etc. etc.
And vengeance becomes justice... unlike his goofy and arrogant predecessor (who was simply a liar, easily manipulated, obedient to his puppet-strings), Obama is well-skilled at the art of linguistic contortions. Die-hard Obama followers wander the same path of willful delusion and ignorance trod by the authoritarian-minded supporters of Bush that went before them.
The OWS movement was started as the active occupation of a physical space.
However, we are seeing examples of "occupy" becoming decoupled from physical engagement and being abstracted as a idea - not an action. We can seen this with the new slogan "occupy everything." Since everything cannot be occupied, the term becomes a meaningless signifier.
The "Occupy language" concept could easily go the same way of becoming a meaningless signifier. Other than symbolically, does infusing the word "occupy" with a rebellious tinge, in any way increase the power of the 99%?
The rhetoric of liberalism gives us all kinds of happy and inspiring words and concepts that have changed nothing. We should not let the liberal class do that to Occupy. (Note the source of this article: the NYT)
The next step for the Occupy movement we have already seen in the recent (and upcoming) port shut-downs: squeezing the 1% at the point of production.
The term wasn't used but the sit-in strikes of the 1930's, the take over of factories like Republic Windows and Doors were occupations. It's time to take some lessons from the past.
Occupy the workplace!!!
And why can not everything physical be occupied? I promote focusing on occupying homes in order to prevent foreclosures.
RE: ...why can not everything physical be occupied?
You are already modifying the original. How about occupying a pen, a teacup, oil, water... One could go on forever noting physical things that would be impossible or silly to occupy. To dematerialize the Occupy movement protest from actual action which challenges the dominance of the 1%, it is a slippery slope to where we satisfy ourselves with rebellious rhetoric instead of rebellious action by the 99%.
There is an ideological war going on with respect to OWS: one is to dismiss it, the other is to co-opt it. In my view, "occupying language" from the article is part of that ideological war. If the (actual not symbolic) power of the 99% grows then so will language change to reflect that. The protest movements of the late 60's and early 70's had a lasting impact on our culture, our language, but they unfortunately did not have a lasting effect on the material reality of what motivated them to protest in the first place. Over the last 40 years we became complicit in the cognitive dissonance between the progressive rhetoric of the culture (liberal rhetoric) and regressive material reality (liberal reality) for the 99%. We were co-opted by liberalism (of course that's its job). There is a real danger of it happening again.
"Occupy" should not be a grab bag for anything goes. It should remain a definite and concrete tactic. It should instill fear in the 1% because it will actually - not symbolically - hurt them.
RE: I promote focusing on occupying homes in order to prevent foreclosures.
Don't get me wrong, this is exactly the kind of occupations that should be and are happening.
Your right, Guess I was not occupying my mind. Should have said we can occupy everywhere.
Occupy the universe, the moon, the ocean, the desert, occupy the "free speech zone"?
None of those occupations would make any difference to global capital. We should occupy spaces that make a difference, that challenge the status quo. Those spaces are very, very few compared to "everywhere."
Why do you insist on creating a meaningless slogan?
There's a lot of people putting out their ideas of what OCCUPY should become, but the OCCUPYers know what they're about, and where they want to go. There's also a lot of people trying to make them out to be everything from druggies to murderers, and every odd-ball breakin, theft, etc., is reported as being a "member of the OCCUPY movement." And there are those who want to annihilale the movement.
My money is on the OCCUPYers.
As a movement "where they [Occupy] want to go" is a work in progress. There are individuals in Occupy that have a very good ideas about where to go and how to get there and others that know where they want to go but are confused about how to get there and still others that don't know where they want to go at all.
A basic problem that affects many occupy locations:
When a decision (often a very time-consuming process) is collectively made to engage in an action (and how that engagement will take place), there are a small number that will not abide by the decision and engage in the action in counter productive ways; yet they want to be considered as having acted under the auspices of the Occupy action. This could be seen in the mixed results of the port shutdown actions on Dec 12th.
One that needs to happen is occupation of the airwaves. Never before has this much (especially) radio equipment been this out-of the-box available for this little money.
Visit sites like The Free Radio Forums. Check the auction Bay-which-is-E-lectronic. Do you (and your friends) have a few hundred dollars? Do have the level of technical knowledge required to burn a mix CD? Congratulations - you're (generally) qualified to run a radio station! Be the media.
I've tried to push this idea for a long time and am rather dismayed at the lack of response.
"Radio Occupy" sounds good to me.
"The term wasn't used but the sit-in strikes of the 1930's, the take over of factories like Republic Windows and Doors were occupations. It's time to take some lessons from the past."
the term was clearly used 'occupation' (to occupy) in 1973 at wounded knee. it's sad that H. Samy Alim did not recognize this (recent american history).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_incident
{Incident
The traditional chiefs and AIM leaders met with the community to discuss how to deal with the declining situation on the reservation. Women elders such as Ellen Moves Camp, founder of the Oglala Sioux Civil Rights Organization (OSCRO), Gladys Bissonette and Agnes Lamont urged the men to take action.[4] They decided to make a stand at the hamlet of Wounded Knee, the renowned site of the last large-scale massacre of the Indian Wars. They occupied the town and announced their demand for the removal of Wilson from office and for immediate revival of treaty talks with the US government. Dennis Banks and Russell Means were prominent spokesmen during the occupation; they often addressed the press, knowing they were making their cause known directly to the American people. The brothers Clyde and Vernon Bellecourt were also AIM leaders at the time, who generally operated in Minneapolis.[5]
The federal government established roadblocks around the community for 15 miles in every direction. In some areas, Wilson stationed his GOONs outside the federal boundary and required even federal officials to stop for passage.[6]
About 10 days into the occupation, the federal government lifted the roadblocks and forced Wilson's people away as well. When the cordon was briefly lifted, many new supporters and activists joined the Oglala Lakota at Wounded Knee. Publicity had made the site and action an inspiration to American Indians nationally. About this time, the leaders declared the territory of Wounded Knee to be the independent Oglala Nation. They demanded to negotiate with the US Secretary of State.[6]
A small delegation, including Frank Fools Crow, the senior elder, and his interpreter, flew to New York in an attempt to address and be recognized by the United Nations (UN). While they received international coverage, they did not receive recognition as a sovereign nation by the UN.[6] This was the beginning of indigenous appeals directly to the United Nations and an international audience. Over the next decades, the UN would increasingly recognize indigenous issues and pass policy in favor of indigenous rights.
John Sayer, a Wounded Knee chronicler, wrote that:[7]
"The equipment maintained by the military while in use during the siege included fifteen armored personnel carriers, clothing, rifles, grenade launchers, flares, and 133,000 rounds of ammunition, for a total cost, including the use of maintenance personnel from the national guard of five states and pilot and planes for aerial photographs, of over half a million dollars."
The data gathered by the historians Record and Hocker largely concur:[8] "...barricades of paramilitary personnel armed with automatic weapons, snipers, helicopters, armored personnel carriers equipped with .50-caliber machine guns, and more than 130,000 rounds of ammunition". The statistics on the U.S. government force at Wounded Knee vary, but all accounts agree that it was a significant military force including "federal marshals, FBI agents, and armored vehicles." One eyewitness and journalist described "sniper fire from…federal helicopters," "bullets dancing around in the dirt," and "sounds of shooting all over town" [from both sides].[9] William C. Keefer was a deputy US Marshal assigned from Los Angeles. At Wounded Knee for the last few weeks of the confrontation, he wrote about it in his book, In A Pig's Eye. Keefer was assigned to arrest AIM leader Russell Means at Deadwood, South Dakota; but Means got to Los Angeles, where he was arrested by the LAPD.
On March 13, Harlington Wood Jr., the assistant attorney general for the Civil Division of the US Justice Department (DOJ), became the first government official to enter Wounded Knee without a military escort. Determined to resolve the deadlock without further bloodshed, he met with AIM leaders for days. While exhaustion made him too ill to conclude the negotiation, he is credited as the "icebreaker"[10][11] between the government and AIM.
After 30 days, the US government tactics became harsher when Kent Frizell was appointed from DOJ to manage the government's response. He cut off electricity, water and food supplies to Wounded Knee, when it was still winter in South Dakota, and prohibited the entry of the media.[6] AIM says that "the government tried starving out the [occupants]," and that its activists smuggled food and medical supplies in past roadblocks "set up by Dick Wilson and tacitly supported by the government."[3] Keefer, the Deputy US Marshal at the scene, said there were no persons between federal agents and the town, and that the federal marshals' fire power would have killed anyone in the open landscape. The Marshals Service decided to wait out the AIM followers in order to reduce casualties on both sides. Some East Coast activists organized an air lift of food supplies to Wounded Knee.[6]
Both AIM and federal government documents show that the two sides traded fire through much of the three months.[1][3] The U.S. Marshal Lloyd Grimm was shot early in the conflict and suffered paralysis from the waist down.[2] Among the many Indian supporters who joined the protest were Frank Clearwater and his pregnant wife, who were Cherokee from North Carolina.[6] He was hit in the head on April 17 while he slept, less than 24 hours after arrival, and he died on April 25.[2]
When Lawrence "Buddy" Lamont, a local Oglala Lakota, was killed by a shot from a government sniper on April 26, he was buried on the site in a Sioux ceremony. After his death, tribal elders called an end to the occupation.[6] Knowing the young man and his mother from the reservation, many Oglala were greatly sorrowed by his death. Both sides reached an agreement on May 5 to disarm.[2][3] With the decision made, many Oglala Lakota began to leave Wounded Knee at night, walking out through the federal lines.[6] Three days later, the siege ended and the town was evacuated after 71 days of occupation; the government took control of the town.[2][3]
...peace...
Wounded Knee is a GREAT example, thanks!
Oh brother, seems like some progressives can't even get the idea of messaging right. "Decolonize", "Daft"? Give me a break. In order to have effective messaging you have to know who your messages are directed at. If their directed AT the 99%, who in america read on average at the 6th grade level, you can't use words like decolonize and daft.
Essay On!! Please bring more from the mind and heart of H. Samy Alim!!
Occupy societal conditioning to think it unnatural to not fear change. I say - BRING IT ON!
Linguistics - Language among many indigenous peoples in South America remains very strong. As old growth forests of the mind these elegant, intricate webs running through the cosmos, mother earth and ideation are sacred vessels that are themselves nutrition. Respect for these requires us to fight for the rights of peoples to remain on their traditional lands - BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE IS NOT SEPARATE from culture/life everyday and every way.
Thanks to Madison Ave. and advertising, the English language has become commodified and hollowed out. Occupy language and colonization !! OH YES!!
Add to that " OYEZ! " occupy the SCOTUS / courts and move to amend... http://movetoamend.org/
Elegant, Old Goat!
One thing the writer didn't mention at all was the sexist nature of language. I know most of you boys don't notice this at all, but consider the following:
HuMANity
MANkind
In an auditorium, you'll generally hear the male pronoun used with the implicit understanding that it's, in theory, an umbrella term that's equally relevant to women. To the female child, it effectively makes her invisible, if not irrelevant.
"All Men are created equal."
"God, the father."
"His will."
"All you guys."
I had trouble learning French and Spanish (one seemed to wipe out the other in my brain) in part because I found the emphasis on which nouns were feminine and which masculine not just annoying, but philosophically ridiculous.
My joke, "How do you know if the noun is masculine or feminine? Pull down its pants?"
Good point Sioux Rose. You might be interested to know that in India, the Deity is called both masculine and feminine. It is often called the Divine Mother.
Wealth -- (n.) Occupation of assets.
"Occupy Language can be a critical, progressive linguistic movement that exposes how language is used as a means of social, political and economic control."
Sounds good to me, a good start for those who phantom themselves "progressives" would be to start within and stop misusing the word "America", (wich IS a continent and NOT a country).
Considering and changing this alone would be very significant... but hey, I know it wont change... even the so called "progressives" (most) cannot and wont refrain from this stupid imperialist attempt at stealing that word... maybe a continental discussion to change the name of the continent would be more likely to happen... gringos are way too deluded, I hardly can hope for logic and reason to triumph over stupidity and corruption (both of those in ample supply in gringoland).
What Alim calls "widespread language-based discrimination" is, in fact, at the very heart of the self-absorbed, self-justifying, Ameri-centric worldview and its consequences for each and every one of us -- not excluding the perpetrators themselves.
If you have the least interest in availing yourself of Robert Burns prayerful wish (O would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us) consider the perspective at http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/4267
Not surprisingly, the first response is a comment by an American that chastens the author for his so-called tongue-lashing: "[T]hose living in an oppressor nation should not be disparaged unduly if they only respond when their own ox has been gored." Apparently, "oppressor nations" shouldn't be disparaged for their indifference and "widespread language-based discrimination" that dehumanizes others.
The Occupy tactic is historically connected in the US to the mighty sitdown strikers of the 1930's (that tactic was declared illegal), and to the sit-ins of the civil rights and counter-culture movements.
Occupy is a less militant version in that it seeks to occupy public space such as parks, rather than occupying private space.
The inability of Occupy to actually occupy private corporate space is a function of the essential legal and political weakness of the few mass organizations in existence in the US.
American citizens get their asses kicked and are subjected to torture and serious injury for the simple act of assembling in a public park. This is a clear sign to all with eyes to see. The citizens of the USA are not free and the few remaining workers rights and organizations are in the crosshairs of the international capitalist conspiracy.
Hola Brothers and Sisters,
Sometime ago Native Americans coined the phrase " White man speaks with triple tongue." Still holds true today and our presidents, politicians, and Wall Street has added a few more tongues in the way delivering the message to the masses. Truth will free our asses...if we know how to decipher the "superiority complex" of the conquerors...
Peace is possible and so is truth...
Tecumseh once told a British officer that, "his words circled like great birds which never land." I'm still waiting for "Occupy" to land myself; may it crap on the 1%.
Great read!
Hearing somebody say 'illegals' feels so wrong!
As far as de-colonizing wall street - - doesn't that imply some sort of natural native version of wall street prior to colonization? I'm not sure there is anything natural about 'the economy. Timothy Mitchell wrote Carbon Democracy and about 'the economy' as an object.
I don't really have a linguistic lens but linguistics as an object is interesting. computational linguistics is tasked with interpreting linguistic theory that may play a big role in the future (think algorithms that read large volumes of email). As 'political economy' become 'the economy' I wonder if linguistics could become 'the linguistic'
"In early September, “occupy” signaled on-going military incursions."
Now "Occupy" has come to mean a stand _against_ the militancy of our public police forces.
The analysis in this article is right on... it reminds of Paolo Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed". His approach of empowering marginalized people was so radical because it taught them to take ownership of their language. It was helpful for them to use words in the light of their own lived experience, not as handed down to them by the 1% of Brazil. For this work he became a threat to the powerful. I worked with a group in Mexico that borrowed some of his technique. It was transformational to the poor - amazing to see it in action.