Micro-bios. Status statements. Tweetable summaries. And I thought the 90-second elevator speech was a toughie!
We speak in shorthand. We fall into faux spelling. We text in alphabet soup.
We classify ourselves and our beliefs as though packaging up a product for the next commercial announcement. We’re “pro” this and “anti” that. We’re in a hurry.
I do it myself, without realizing.
We’ve all grown accustomed to the latest labels, competing voices, the surface of a story which really deserves thoughtful investigation – or at the very least, a proper reading.
Like all of us, I’m a product of pop culture. I’m dashing through my days and trying to digest more information than is humanly possible, while attempting to reduce involved concepts to the down-and-dirty drift of the matter.
Resorting to sound bites.
And I need to pay attention. To remind myself to pay attention. As Wiki defines it, the sound bite is a useful tool, with caveats:
characterized by a short phrase or sentence that deftly captures the essence of what the speaker is trying to say
However, you run the risk of misrepresentation, you lack context, and an ample dose of journalistic ethics is required.
Fine. That’s journalism, you’re thinking. And how does this apply to everyday life?
Facebook Fun and Sound Bite Sound-Offs
Yesterday, an incident came up in a Facebook exchange. Or rather, the exchange got me to pondering how easy it is to favor rapid fire reactions over reasoned responses, and enthusiasm over exactitude. In other words – to use a label rather than explain, and even – to use a label that makes little sense – when you think about it.
In a short dialog with another writer, over issues of marriage and divorce, I took exception to the term “pro-divorce.” I wrote:
I think the term “pro-divorce” makes for good marketing, but it’s a bit like “pro-life” – who ISN’T “for” life, and who ISN’T unhappy about divorce? These are quickie classifications that rile us up and are ultimately divisive and unproductive… By the way, would you say you were “pro-marriage” or “anti-marriage?” Just another example. I’m neither; recognizing that marriage is an institution which likely needs tinkering, but it’s up to each couple to shape it to their needs, in my personal opinion.
To situate this bit of sharing, the person I was communicating with wasn’t the first to use the term. In fact she used it in reference to its appearance elsewhere. We all use terms like this to get a point across – and that’s my point. Sometimes it isn’t until we stop and reconsider them that we realize they’re defeating our purpose.
Here’s the dilemma. We become inured to the actual meaning of what we say as we find ourselves immersed in popular (or political) jargon. We dilute – if not distort – original intentions.
Use Your Words! (Me, Too)
There are no villains in this scenario, only participants in a society in which precision is sacrificed to sensationalism, and quick classifications shove aside more measured evaluation. Anxious to be heard, we cut corners, rely on buzzwords, and spar rather than listen.
What do we lose?
Not only do we lessen the power of well chosen words, but we lose the habit of considered discussion of complex issues. We dismiss the depth of the subject matter, or the breadth of possible interpretations.
I’ve written about my concern for the damaging effects of lazy language – specifically with regard to women and self-esteem. My example – the interjection of “just” into our speech, diminishing authority as softening our message.
This is a different issue of course, but at its heart sits a neighboring problem – our cultural impatience, our reliance on social media, and our growing desire for the sound bite alone, and its simplicity in providing a neat (forgettable) and brief (misleading) so-called “answer.”
So what’s the solution? Should we turn back the clock? Should we quit social media?
There is no turning back. And nor would we want to. Social media has its utility, and in that oversimplification lies a partial response. We do need to stop and think about the words we use, the way we use them, and the appropriate usage of our feeds and “friends.”
Pro-fessional?
Here are a few “pro” words that I’m very much in favor of. Professional. Proactive. Productive.
And I’m very much “pro” recognizing that we all have our own perspectives; that life holds few absolutes, but rather – perception through a personal lens. My fact is your fiction; my fantasy is your reality.
I certainly don’t exempt myself from the tendency to toss an abbreviated tidbit into the world – in conversation with my kids, my friends, or even in writing. At times it’s just right, it’s useful, it’s entertaining. But when it comes to my profession, and daily communications – rushed, crushed, with conflicting priorities and dizzying deadlines like the rest of you, I hope I can remind myself to be a pro rather than prefix with -pro.
And dispense with sound bites which do serious topics a disservice.
You May Also Enjoy
I am guilty of using sound bites on occasion, but most often I make my husband crazy with my inability to give a simple yes or no answer to a question. I find I NEED to explain, to offer an exception, an additional thought. He says I’m not taking a definitive position – I say I cannot because there is more than one way of looking at things. If however, you ask if I want anchovies on my pizza, I can give a one-word, resounding NO!
Love it, Carol! You’re so right! Say “yes” or “no” and leave it at that – not so easy!
I am impressed with the consistent quality of your writing, day in and day out, even when different topics may have more or less of your involvement. Much more is involved of course. The subject matter, recipient, and venue, for examples. It sometimes bothers me that, in some classes, effective communication requires that I simplify things so much that I feel like I’m almost lying. In my peace work, effective communication often requires that I make one point clearly and briefly. At other times, I give mini-lectures in 420 spaces or less (rarely much less) on Facebook. Accuracy and precision are good, and even better when presented in a way that keeps readers’ attention and is readily understandable. Jargon and ad hominem arguments are evil. Readers should come away feeling that they have learned something. For myself, it seems that working to be briefer is better, and blah blah blah blah blah.
I am trying to use the “short answer” more often than the long answer. I’ve found the long answer is a whole bunch of hemming and hawing and prefacing and worry all heaped on top of what I really think. I need to say it and stand by it, without all that clarification.
Kelly – Do you find the hemming, hawing, and prefacing to be particularly “female” in its usage? (Habit, qualifying everything?) Curious…
Twitter and Facebook have spawned a culture of type first, think later. It used to be one wrote an email or letter, set it aside to “cool.” and reviewed it later before sending. Not so anymore. Each genre has its place (and lexicon) but common sense should be a constant. As for abbreviated language, like I said, there is a time and place for things like this. But one should be well-versed in what those times and places are! Unfortunately, I’ve seen students use the lazy language in formal email correspondence (student/teacher or student/professional) many times. It makes me shake my head. I think we are all moving towards life as 140 character sound bytes! I can’t wait to see what the next generation passes for proper language skills. Yikes!
I do think there’s a place for all these types of communication, as I think you do Lisa (reading between the lines). The challenge is to know when to effectively use each. I imagine you see a little of everything, from your students! (Yikes, indeed.)
I am so very guilty of this. I’ve always been quick on the draw, quick to react, quick to draw conclusions. Couple that with social media and it can be a recipe for disaster. But here’s the funny thing, social media has actually forced me to slow down, to think carefully because I’ve learned it so readily scrutinizable (is that a word?), so in some ways, the reverse has been true for me.
In my personal life, I’ve made it a rule to discuss emotional/serious conversations via telephone or in person. I prefer to have a conversation regarding the issue, rather than send messages via email, text or facebook. Sometimes you must advocate for the long way because too many assumptions are made through social media.
Sounds like a great rule, Rudri.
I’ve been thinking about this too. It goes from bad to worse.
Some years ago, I heard this radio conversation:
Interviewer soliciting a reaction: “America will not stand for it.”
Interviewee: “There is no America.”
I had to think a bit what he meant. Then I remembered reading way back in high school S.I. Hayakawa’s Language in Thought and Action.
The map is not the territory.
What a revelation.