The trade of a jeweler is the shaping of gems. The careful choice of stone; the exact, deliberate placement of facet. The perfect shaping of gems is the product, the life's work of a jeweler. And they do their work with the precision and attention to detail that the trade calls for. Same with a swordsmith, to take another example.
What jewels are to a jeweler and steel is to a swordsmith, words are to a politician -- to anyone involved in the shaping of policy. Because the exact arrangement of words *is* their entire product. The shaping of ideas, the shaping of memes. To effect change, one's tools are words -- speeches, policies, guidelines, articles, etc. Those are the wedges and picks, the files and putty, by which one changes the mental landscape, the collective gestalt. One seeks to shape the collective gestalt of the 100 senators in the Senate such that the final result is one more vote than the other side. One seeks to change the collective gestalt of the voters of a region to lead to the passage of a particular bill or the election of a particular politician. Politicians and activists do what they do because they ultimately want to shape the world -- and words are their tools. And their choice of words is no more an accident than the choice of facets is to a jeweler or the choice of succession of hammering and filing is to a swordsmith.
The crafters of the CDC guideline, for example, obviously wanted to affect change. That's the whole point of a guideline. And at the level of the CDC, it is possible that the shaping of such a document might be done without excruciatingly careful consideration of the multiple messages that are intended to be sent -- but I highly doubt it. On issues lying as close to the heart of so many political movements, anyone with the brains God gave a turnip would realize how such a document could have the power to change the collective gestalt, advance or retard agendas, influence the mental landscape. Because *everything* is just another piece in the puzzle, another opportunity to play another stone on the Great Board. Politicians -- especially those at that level -- know that and do not waste a single opportunity. It's sort of the same way why it *matters* when a parent calls a kid "stupid" all the time. Yes, it's just a word. But it has an effect. It changes the kid's mental headspace into very profound, real-world results. And the same goes for something like a CDC guideline. Any politician knows the most powerful thing you can do to lay the framework for a paradigm shift is to first change the language. It's possible the authors of the CDC guideline didn't fully consider all the ramifications of the way they framed their document. But I highly doubt it.
I spent years in activism, on many committees charged with drafting all kinds of language -- statements, policies, resolutions, bills. And I've spent much time and many a fight battling over the most subtle of word choices -- and then, months or years later, using those word choices as the launchpads for still further movement. Subtle word choices can change a debate radically, steer -- or allow it to be steered -- in dramatically different directions. Words matter, and none know it better than professional politicians. Because they could have reframed or rewritten that guideline to provide the exact same information more than one way. That they chose the way they did chose to do it could have been an accident. But that would be like a jeweler who banged out cuts on a jewel at random or a swordsmith who filed without thought. Amateurs might do that; but amateurs don't play on the Washington DC level.
no subject
The trade of a jeweler is the shaping of gems. The careful choice of stone; the exact, deliberate placement of facet. The perfect shaping of gems is the product, the life's work of a jeweler. And they do their work with the precision and attention to detail that the trade calls for. Same with a swordsmith, to take another example.
What jewels are to a jeweler and steel is to a swordsmith, words are to a politician -- to anyone involved in the shaping of policy. Because the exact arrangement of words *is* their entire product. The shaping of ideas, the shaping of memes. To effect change, one's tools are words -- speeches, policies, guidelines, articles, etc. Those are the wedges and picks, the files and putty, by which one changes the mental landscape, the collective gestalt. One seeks to shape the collective gestalt of the 100 senators in the Senate such that the final result is one more vote than the other side. One seeks to change the collective gestalt of the voters of a region to lead to the passage of a particular bill or the election of a particular politician. Politicians and activists do what they do because they ultimately want to shape the world -- and words are their tools. And their choice of words is no more an accident than the choice of facets is to a jeweler or the choice of succession of hammering and filing is to a swordsmith.
The crafters of the CDC guideline, for example, obviously wanted to affect change. That's the whole point of a guideline. And at the level of the CDC, it is possible that the shaping of such a document might be done without excruciatingly careful consideration of the multiple messages that are intended to be sent -- but I highly doubt it. On issues lying as close to the heart of so many political movements, anyone with the brains God gave a turnip would realize how such a document could have the power to change the collective gestalt, advance or retard agendas, influence the mental landscape. Because *everything* is just another piece in the puzzle, another opportunity to play another stone on the Great Board. Politicians -- especially those at that level -- know that and do not waste a single opportunity. It's sort of the same way why it *matters* when a parent calls a kid "stupid" all the time. Yes, it's just a word. But it has an effect. It changes the kid's mental headspace into very profound, real-world results. And the same goes for something like a CDC guideline. Any politician knows the most powerful thing you can do to lay the framework for a paradigm shift is to first change the language. It's possible the authors of the CDC guideline didn't fully consider all the ramifications of the way they framed their document. But I highly doubt it.
I spent years in activism, on many committees charged with drafting all kinds of language -- statements, policies, resolutions, bills. And I've spent much time and many a fight battling over the most subtle of word choices -- and then, months or years later, using those word choices as the launchpads for still further movement. Subtle word choices can change a debate radically, steer -- or allow it to be steered -- in dramatically different directions. Words matter, and none know it better than professional politicians. Because they could have reframed or rewritten that guideline to provide the exact same information more than one way. That they chose the way they did chose to do it could have been an accident. But that would be like a jeweler who banged out cuts on a jewel at random or a swordsmith who filed without thought. Amateurs might do that; but amateurs don't play on the Washington DC level.
That's my take, anyway.