A Repost and Some Thoughts on Connotation and Denotation as Social Practices

First read An Open Letter to Ann Coulter* from a Special Olympian for the context.  Then read it again.  Then share it with all your friends.  Then read it again.  Then donate to the Special Olympics.

Ok.  Now pretend you're not still clinging to your tissue box and let's break down some of the writerly magic of what just happened.

In James Scully's book of essays on poetry as social practice called "Line Breaks,"** his essay "In Defense of Ideology" has a great start talking about a left wing poster that says "No More Vietnams."  So much amazingness happens when he breaks it down as part of a time period, perspective, and social message, but some of the points to summarize:

• That message is coming from the ones who want to keep up some form of status quo and avoid a "pointless war," as more "Vietnams" will not benefit them and put their believed values at risk.
• However, to the Vietnamese and other nations resisting Imperial Oppression from the U.S. (this was the 70s-80s, so think about half of South America and bits and pieces of Asia), the successful Vietnamese resistance was a potential point of pride.  David kept exploding rocks at the Goliaths until they gave up and went home.
• In other words, to the ones able to watch wars from the safety of their homes and pat themselves on the back as radicals, they didn't want another war like this.  However, to the ones facing "legal" oppression, they had reason to want many more "Vietnams."  The idea brought about a sense of freedom and change and the pride that they did not have to be ruled by others.

A big part of what I took away from this is watch out for people (including the well intentioned and you yourself) passing off a connotation (suggested meaning) as a denotation (literal meaning).   In other words, in the phrase "No More Vietnams" the message is set up as assuming everyone would/should understand one direct meaning of that phrase, when in fact it is oblivious to the fact that there are multiple ways to interpret it.

The R-word, a main topic of this article, is a loaded, loaded word that is right up there with the 3 letter f-word and the n-word.  A main reason Stephens' letter is so effective is because he breaks down how Coulter is trying to use the word derogatorily without knowing the extent of what it really means and what being a human with Downs Syndrome means to a man like Stephens.  And he goes in!  Quickly, effectively, succinctly, and with love in the face of ignorance.    MLK would be proud.  The response is not only smart and sharp, but a speedy master class in linguistics in society.

Stephens knows what she is trying to mean by her use of the word.  He is no dumby.  However, instead of calling out the lack of thoughtfulness that would result in her using the word the way she did, he explores what being someone referred to by that word is really like.  Really thought provoking look into what we really may be saying when we use overlooked everyday phrases and terms.  And damn, is that a great piece of writing.

I know I have heard an educated friend or two describe Coulter's outrage  craving style as being "retarded."  After reading this article I think it is clear to say no, not even close.

With love and inspiration,
Jason

* for people having trouble with the fancy schmancy link, try this: http://specialolympicsblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/an-open-letter-to-ann-coulter/

** One of my essay books ever, and I love me some essays.  Though some are a bit too loaded with those big sounding academic words, most is pretty accessible at exploring the ins and outs of language, use of language, and how it is always a political act, even/especially when just supporting a status quo.  The foreword is by Adrienne-Bad-Ass-Rich, so you know it's something serious.