"Egoriarchy": How Things We Say Put Others Down, Even When We Intend Otherwise

[Zyler]

[U][B]Parochial Egoism or the "Egoriarchy": How Things We Say Put Others Down, Even When We Intend Otherwise.[/B][/U]

There has been much discussion recently over whether modern media, contemporary intellectuals and political ideologies are inherently biased or socially and culturally dis-cognizant due to their inability to address certain types of criticism by being unable to 'lower' themselves to the level that they perceive of their critics.

Irregardless of current political struggles, this post considers the more general idea that the language we use creates a mental barrier between those we see as the mentally rigorous 'in-group' and those we perceive as the mentally stubborn and unsophisticated 'out-group', and how this ultimately leads to prejudice and stereotyping of the out-group. The way we communicate affects the way others perceive us which in turn affects the way they respond to us and how we perceive them. We also explore ways of consciously adjusting the language we use to compensate for this problem.

[B]You And I And We Are Not The Same[/B]
One of the most common and often subconscious choices we make when choosing our language is when we create the distinction between ourselves and the person we are addressing, often unwittingly as in the case of the generic or impersonal 'you' as opposed to 'I' or 'we'. In grammatical terms, this is when we use the pronoun 'you' to refer to a general or unspecified person. To test if 'you' are using the unspecified pronoun, test if 'you' can replace 'you' in the sentence with 'one', i.e. "you should always brush your teeth twice per day" becomes "one should always brush your teeth twice per day". It's quite common in an argument that one individual could use the impersonal 'you' and another individual could interpret the 'you' as referring to themselves instead of a general entity. This could be interpreted as insulting, condescending or assumptive of the second individual's motives. The alternative, which is using 'one' instead of 'you', can also come off as too formal and therefore condescending in a 'casual' argument. The only way to avoid this problem is to avoid using impersonal pronouns entirely, either by writing in a strict, authoritative manner like I have with this post (to avoid referring to any individual entirely, so any use of a pronoun can only be impersonal) or to phrase your speech as a series of questions directed entirely to the individual you are responding to (meaning the use of pronouns is entirely personal, either directed to whoever you're arguing with or to the reader).

For example, phrasing the above paragraph as a series of questions would look like this:

[QUOTE][I]"Do you notice when people say 'you' and they don't actually mean you specifically, but rather a general, nondescript person? Isn't that annoying?

Wouldn't it be better if we stuck to either saying what we were going to say in a more general, formal manner; just laying out the argument without referring to anybody specifically, or addressed people with a series of questions?"[/I][/QUOTE]

For long and detailed arguments, the formal style is better because it allows greater elaboration. For short arguments and quick rebuttals, the question style is better because it is quick to write and lacks unnecessary explanation.

[B]
Unintentional Self-Aggrandizement or "I'm so much better than all the other people who look like me"[/B]
It's common in the media, as well as in general online discussion on blogs, forums and social media, to find individuals who self-flagellate over issues of identity and politics. Articles with titles like "America is a dumb, racist and sexist country" will commonly be found to be written by Americans themselves. Blog entries with opening lines such as "White People Are Inherently Racist" will be often written and published by a white person. More recently, we've seen such remarks as "Liberals are responsible for Trump Presidency" which are, once again, written by liberals themselves.

So what's happening here? A moment of self-reflection? Well that depends on whether the writers of these assorted online texts actually consider themselves to be dumb, racist, sexist or responsible for Trump's presidency. And I doubt it. What I propose is happening here is that the writers of these texts are talking themselves up while putting their supposed brethren down and maintaining a mocking, two-faced facade of appearing to be humble.

Or are they?

One of the most difficult aspects of online political conversation, even more difficult than clarifying that 'you' didn't mean 'you' as in 'you' but more generally as in 'you' instead, is maintaining a nuanced position of understanding both sides of an issue and not coming down as insulting to either one. It's so much easier, and less exhausting, to simply agree when one person says "x group of people is racist, sexist, corrupt, responsible for Trump's presidency, too politically correct and wants to take your rights away" than it is to argue every point, when at every term you must clarify that you aren't 'suggesting', 'implying' or in any other way subtly hinting that anyone you disagree with is "racist, sexist, corrupt, responsible for Trump's presidency, and so on" either. People will frequently, and you might suspect perhaps deliberately, misconstrue what you're saying, twist definitions to make the words you use sound more aggressive than they are and 'tell you' what 'you're saying' even though you've never said anything remotely similar.

The first reason for this is that people bring their own biases and prejudices into every argument and every conversation they have. You've probably done this too without realizing it; reading the first sentence or first few words of a post and then losing focus as you instead think about your super clever, indignant and strongly worded reply.

The second reason is something you can do something about. Restructuring the way you word your writing, especially the first few words, can substantially reduce the likelihood of an individual interpreting it the wrong way. We sardonically mock the memetic phrase "I'm not racist but..." because of its perceived insincerity, but it is essentially the kind of precipice you must leap off from if you don't want people to inject their own prejudice into your viewpoint. To avoid being perceived as insincere, avoid the 'I' or 'I am' pronoun, in fact don't refer to yourself at all. Instead use the formal or question based written style proposed in the previous section and simply state your contention as fact. Don't refer to specific groups of people like 'liberals' or 'conservatives' but also don't say 'some people', which can be interpreted as you hinting at an insult, instead use the phrase 'It is commonly believed...' or something similar (but make sure it is actually something that is commonly believed, else you'll still come off as insulting). The common sense wisdom is that if someone actually believes what they say, they will simply state it as a fact because they believe it to be true. Of course, simply stating your opinion as such will lead to assumptions being made about your character, as your speech may be viewed as too informal and not considerate enough for the subject matter, leading others to assume that you are insulting them. Hence the precipice- the jumping off point.

[B]Implicit Bias In Language or the "working-class white men" problem[/B]
There are times when, no matter how you construct your language, you will come off as insulting and demeaning to other people even when stating what appears to be a substantiated and unequivocal fact. An example of this is what I call the "working-class white men" problem, which is a phenomenon wherein any mention of the term "working-class white men" will automatically trigger a conservative user to respond with inexplicable outrage. This occurs, for example, in online articles that mention that the main voter-base of conservative political candidates are working-class white men.

The only solution to this is to acknowledge the negative connotations of the term, use a slightly altered term and once again preface the use of it with a precipice noting that the term is not meant to be interpreted in the manner it is normally assumed to be used in, as per the manner described in the previous section.

[JaegerMonster]

I was with you until the last section where you lost me.

The use of the term "working class" (actually the term working class is almost never used, rather framed as "non-college educated") "white men" leads to outrage because what the person is really trying to say is stupid hick, but weasels an "out" in their choice of words. Sort of like if I were to say "urban youths" when what i actually want to convey without being caught out is "niggers". Its the implicit dishonesty and weaseling that adds to the outrage I think.

It is also almost always used in a derogatory manner. To suggest that the person is ignorant and/or stupid for not having a college education. And of course, doubly ignorant and stupid, as well as problematic, for being white and male.

[Zyler]

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;51377840]I was with you until the last section where you lost me.

The use of the term "working class" (actually the term working class is almost never used, rather framed as "non-college educated") "white men" leads to outrage because what the person is really trying to say is stupid hick, but weasels an "out" in their choice of words. Sort of like if I were to say "urban youths" when what i actually want to convey without being caught out is "niggers". Its the implicit dishonesty and weaseling that adds to the outrage I think.

It is also almost always used in a derogatory manner. To suggest that the person is ignorant and/or stupid for not having a college education. And of course, doubly ignorant and stupid, as well as problematic, for being white and male.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, I should have been more clear with what I meant with that section.

The idea of "working-class white men" or "non-college educated white men" or what have you being a derogatory term is that even if the statement you are making is factually true; i.e. "the majority of this conservative candidate's supporters are non-college educated white men" or something similar; people will still interpret the term as derogatory even if the statement itself is true.

The point I was trying to cover is that in some cases there's no way of precipitating a phrase to make it non-insulting, some statements are just insulting due to their inherent nature/history so you have to use an altered term as well as a precipice.