A veteran English professor at the University of Michigan, Anne Curzan, is a linguist. Her new book, “Says Who?” argues that our choice of words in the English language is determined by context, and that this context is often cultural or based on class. The core of Curzan’s book coalesces around three observations. One is that language evolves and therefore it is never constant. We are better off welcoming its changing nature than resisting it. Two, although we live in a hyper verbal time, language must be more inclusive, more sensitive and less judgmental. Three, the rules and conventions of language can be arbitrary. For the above reasons, she finds nothing objectionable with conversational tics such as “awesome,” “like,” “nice,” etc that are really lazy shorthands for certain adjectives. She also does not find fault with the propensity where nouns and corporate tags are turned into verbs. “Go Google that,” is one example of the latter. (I recall that almost 30 years ago, this inventive tagline, “Do you Yahoo?” defined some aspects of our generation’s lingua.)
At an abstract level, it is easy to accept the premises of Curzan’s book. But, because she encourages us to accept all language however slovenly it is, she fails to draw attention to the insidious effect of bad or incorrect English grammar, or careless and vulgar language. First, there is a correlation between thinking coherently and writing coherently. One who fails to write coherently is one who doesn't think coherently. Second, every conscientious writer wants his or her reader to know exactly what he or she means. This minimizes the odds of being misunderstood. The rules of the English language (on grammar, spelling, usage, punctuation, etc) are a necessary guardrail because they help a conscientious writer in his or her quest to be well understood. Three, the inclination to observe and not pass judgment on how others use language is probably acceptable to those who study but won’t judge the culture of others. Prominent among this group of people would be lexicographers and anthropologists. But bad language is unacceptable to a lot of other people. These would be readers, listeners, editors, publishers, etc - whose judgment of language matters and thus ought to be made. Readers of Curzan's book need to be reminded that language defines who we are; good language even more so...
Anne Curzan, Says Who?: A Kinder, Funner Usage for Everyone Who Cares About Words (Crown, New York City, 2024) Amazon - USD 22.58; Exclusive Books - BWP (unavailable)
Becca Rothfeld is a philosopher. She is also one of the editors of “The Point,” a philosophy periodical known for addressing humanistic concerns and life experiences as worthy of exploration in an interconnected, multicultural and cosmopolitan world. Her essay collection, “All things are Too Small,” qualifies to be a subject of her periodical. The crux of her book is that excess in art (novels, films, visual art, etc.) and in life (food, relationships, sex, acquisitions, etc.) is desirable and that smallness and minimalism are limiting and constrain pleasure. Understood superficially, this appears good, perhaps even convincing. Two examples from the book should illustrate this. One of them is how and why women have to wait for a man to love them first before they can love him back. To Rothfeld, and in an observation that many would agree with, to expect women to live like this, is to condemn them to a life of painful expectation which, unfairly, isn’t foisted on men. Another observation of hers is the disconnection between our obsession with economic and political justice - a moral thing to do - and eroticism - the quest, sometimes immoral, to satisfy sexual desires. Justice, meaning fairness in the John Rawls’ sense, requires moderation or proportion. On the other hand, eroticism demands an overabundance of sensuality. To her and to many who would again agree with her, since many of those demanding fairness are now increasingly women, there is an unfair expectation on them to tame their sensuality to accord with their demand for justice in other realms of life.
Over the course of reading her book, Rothfeld has managed to elicit from me, emotions ranging from awe to exasperation to wonder. This is commendable. Nonetheless, here is an instance where she has been blindsided by her own boldness. Minimalism, like veganism (its dietary counterpart), is not just an ideology about a lifestyle choice. Instead, it is a harbor. Whether one merely thinks seriously about it (as she does) or actually lives it (as we do), it looms large in one’s imagination as a place of safety, thoughtfulness, or attraction, or a combination of some of these qualities. Still, like veganism, it remains a complex process of deliberation and judgment. It releases us from the shackles of a herd mentality - of doing or choosing things merely because others do so. It grants us liberty from the physical discomfort of having too much as possessions. Counterintuitively, it relieves us of a deep seated dissatisfaction with an overflowing life. As an exception to our consumerist societies, minimalism beckons us to review our yearning for excess, for our own good and to help us gain clarity of mind, spend less and have time only for things that actually improve our lives and us. While thought provoking and erudite, Rothfeld's book on the need for maximalism and overindulgence fails to account for these intrinsic personal matters. Her readers may require to be reminded that even an outwardly bland life such as that of a minimalist (or a vegan) can be wondrously rich and distinctly satisfying.
Becca Rothfeld, All Things are Too Small: Essays in Praise of Excess (Metropolitan Books, New York City, 2024) Amazon - USD 21.24; Exclusive Books - BWP (unavailable)
*Radipati is a regular Mmegi contributor
