THAT VS. WHO: The Politics of Linguistics

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-maric/that-vs-who-brthe-politic_b_100292.html

This piece might be restored. Please feel free to read all the reviews below. Thank You All !

Reviews

Speaking of politics, you're careful not to offend those for whom "that" has replaced "who". Next time you should write a piece on "who" vs. "whom", or maybe "so-and-so and I" vs. "so-and-so and me" -- both huge pet peeves of mine.

Hmm, I'm afraid the above appears somewhat sarcastic... Well, it's not. I enjoyed your story immensely.

[Lorianne Zeller]

ok, i'll admit it
this made my brain hurt
in fact, i think it even made my hair hurt...
but in a good way.

thanks for that.

[Dave E.]

This piece is so frantic that I am both disturbed and curious. You draw several parallels (who/that : subjective/objective : left/right : sentience/non-sentience) but I am still not entirely convinced, which may not be necessary anyway. The argument concerning Descartes, in which you debate the veracity of consciousness and instead apply thought as a universal concept, could have some application (systems theory, maybe). I have always believed that a soul is based on conscious action. If the majority of existance operates on a system designed for homeostasis and survival mechanisms, then how could all those beings deliberately choose their behavior? Human beings are different because our functionality is on a higher level than anything else around else (provided we don't create some self-sustaining a.i. that ends up obliterating us Terminator style) and we define ourselves by having the ability to utilize conscious action and thought. Globilization has taken some of the uniqueness away from the world population, but benefits exist along with consequences. An effort to expand contact is a natural progression in our existance, and without the internet I could not even begin to discuss something so esoteric anyway with someone as intelligent as you, so global expansion can't be so bad. The business about objectivity/subjectivity is more about balance than opposition, much like brain function and language. Language is a subjective artform based on creating reality that is then (more or less) defined objectively. With this combination, there is bound to be confusion and entanglements. Language is also in a constant flux, so assigning too much influence on one word is either a blessing or a curse. I detest the whole "like" phase, but like many phases it will probably pass unless it becomes an integral part of the social fabric. Only then will the discussion end, but then another will inevitably begin. This is an important topic because the world is out of balance, which is why this line of thinking gives me some hope for change. Fantastic work.

[Ernie Bailey]

Hmm.well..the speed didnt break my neck but the lack of structure did.Is the world ready for stream of conciousness non-fiction?I dont know..but i wish they were,i wish they were.And the word 'who' begs a question mark,'that' seems a bit more stated,a bit more authoritative;I think thats part of the attraction.at the same time,though,its a trick i think thats what makes it stick out so crudely.use who or use that and it doesnt make you any more certain but it gives that appearence.the use of that or who is certainly a characteristic of your degree of certainty but it could also be,and is often,just a subtle trick played on the reader.But the whole that/who debate,its all definately,or it seems to be,a symptom of the very impersonal world thats grown up around the ever increasing corperate machine.i dont quite understand your ultimate conclusion,it seems like a big step from your previos point(or atleast an untimely summation of the last few paragraphs) and thus semi-arbitrary.your last argument kind of lends itself to the nietzschean 'god is mans blunder'..which i agree with.what other explanation can there be for god being a personified being rather than the pantheist sum of all things?i really want to commend you though because ive never been so stimulated by such a short literation.

[Peter Reyes]

What's funny is that I was just talking to a friend of mine about this a little over a week ago, and we seemed to be under the impression that the rule had changed and nobody told us. I'm glad we're not the only ones who noticed.

[William W. Wraith]

I certainly have noticed "that" replacing "who," and I'm glad to find I'm not the only one thinking this is a move toward dehumanization.

On globalization, I do take the unusual position of pointing out to other USA people that, while we may have the lion's share of the world economy, and the pollution, the prisons, the arrogance, the nationalistic fervor (one of the great causes of wars of aggression), we should not forget that other people are prideful of their countries, too. Speaking of which, bumper stickers like "power of pride" cause me to exude uneasy laughter, for in my view, born especially from a Buddhist world view, pride seems not so much an advantage in this material world, as a dangerous taint of the mind that should be carefully watched, as we would keep an eye on a mountain lion we think might be hungry and see us as lunch.

As to work, USA people cannot switch jobs without losing health care coverage, and this is the only country in the "first" world whose government mandates zero days of paid vacation. We work 2000 hours a year and rising, while nobody in Europe works more than 1800. We complain kids are undisciplined, but we have allowed ourselves to be sucked into needing so much STUFF, that both parents must work full time in order to remain in place. Seems to me parents and kids no long have time to be what they once were; the former were nurturing presences; the latter ran outdoors, free all day to play and make up the rules as they went (now they must go from trumpet lessons to volley ball, all highly structured.

I do not think your mention of the Third Reich is at all out of line. When I saw how people cheered our invasion of Iraq and jeered as unpatriotic anyone who wasn't praising the Bush regime, immediately in my mind I saw the newsreel footage of the euphoric crowds greeting Hitler wherever he went, a man who (that?) could do no wrong, knew all the answers to everything.

This is true in the economy as well, as I think of an article not long ago telling me today looks like 1925 heading for 1929.

The Mind; Freedom ultimately is in one�s Head: this is the Buddhist idea that captured me for a lifetime. You can either smooth the world by covering it with leather, or you can more simply wear leather shoes and stop blaming the world for sore feet.

I learned much about who you are in this article. I would mention the Madhyamika (Middle Way) school of Buddhism. If the Madhyamika hears a person emphasizing who, he argues for that; and vice versa, the point being that these "descriminations" are a sort of arbitrariness that mind should guard against taking as realities. There is only the flux of the relative, the realm of language, language which can only ever point to truth, but which can never express TRUTH ITSELF; never can an expression that is not negateable be uttered.

[Lance]

reminded me of that Richard Tarnas book I read.

[Bullgooseloon]

Okay, let me get an embarrassing sentiment out, first, and I hope you forgive me for it: Women who are much more intelligent than I am are like totally hot.

What a well thought out, if maybe slightly outlandish and apocalyptic, theory. I'm sure I'm guilty of such ... reverse personification, maybe? Now, I know I'm being too literal, but I can argue "that" is grammatically correct in said situations with the dictionary backing me up: "used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the speaker". Of course, you could argue this is only an example of insidious laziness affecting our syntax. And maybe I'm just hoping for a passionate response.

This is the first piece I've read, of yours, and so I may be jumping to conclusions, but I do have some criticism. Ease up on us, dear. Jeesh.

I want to absorb everything because I found everything immensely interesting. I loved reading the section about words and phrases you've noticed wax and wane. That's profound and impacts everyone on this site directly. I love, love your stretches of thought as you connect a word choice to nationalism and dehumanization. And, yes, I adore colons, semi-colons. Dashes are the spice of life, to me. But, o, by the end of this - excuse me - wonderful mindfuck, my poor, American, short-attention-ed brain was swirling in a soup of them; awash in ideas my non-degree having butt needs time to comprehend.

I'm just asking for you to take it easy on us. You got the info, I want it. Give it to me in doses I can handle. Break up some paragraphs. Mess with the pace and slooooow down that breakneck rhythm. Say, "Open wide, Jeffrey, here comes another spoonful of smarts." I like the choo choo train.

(just my humble opinions, of course. rock on. and o, what about fear? what if some fear the word "who" and its evil sister "whom"? "that" becomes so much easier to place anywhere. another idea submitted with respect ...)

[Ryan Merritt]

I've got some friends that would love this.

[.mgwheeler]

something is rotten in the state of denmark.

state of denmark = world
something = everything

[Brother Wolf]

Who is that of which we speak?
That is who while who is that.
We, certainly, can be sure of nothing anymore
As Big Brother hides behind the mirror,
issuing gramatical citations to the foul mouthed ill informed.
sssssh! The thought police will hear.......