Summary Of A Word About Words By Alinsky

egarding this week’s readings, Alinsky’s piece, ‘A Word About Words’, is perfect material for understanding Politically Correct English (PCE) culture and the implications it has on the very issues that its proponents wish to correct. Alinsky’s argument is that the meanings of words such as power, self-interest, ego, compromise, and conflict have been hijacked by a politically illiterate population thereby undermining the process of producing social change. He states, “Striving to avoid the force, vigor, and simplicity of word “power,” we soon become averse to thinking in vigorous, simple and honest terms. We strive to invent sterilized synonyms, cleansed of the opprobrium of the word power--but the new words mean something different, so that they tranquilize us, begin to shepherd our mental processes off the main, conflict ridden, grimy, and realistic power paved way of life” (51). Language and its usage is then an inherently political issue and an issue that I think the left is unfortunately losing the battle on--of which will be discussed in depth later on.
What one must realize is that language can either be instrumental or reflexive in regards to social change.
Alinsky had a deep understanding of this and it can be seen when he writes, “By using combinations of words such as “harnessing the energy” instead of the single word “power,” we begin to dilute the meaning; and as we use purifying synonyms, we dissolve the bitterness, the anguish, the hate and love, the agony and the triumph attached to these words, leaving an aseptic imitation of life” (50). In other words, language has an effect on the issues that we choose to fight for. To produce change, you need an issue that will excite people into action and one way to excite is bold rhetoric. (Bold rhetoric does not rely upon exaggerated claims, political euphemisms, or a blatant disregard for
truth.)
I think we can apply Alinsky’s discontent with language usage to the contemporary debate over the issue of national wealth redistribution. Think of the simple and honest term to describe Alinsky’s “have-nots” on the issue on wealth redistribution. The word is poor and Alinsky we could call them poor people. Now think of the new sterilized synonyms politically correct progressives apply to the “have-nots”. The poor are now referred to as the “economically disadvantaged” or “low-income”. Certain factions within the Left focus on how the word “poor” makes people feel and fight to see that people become more sophisticated with their words when referring to the “economically disadvantaged” rather than fight for legislative wins to reduce poverty. This is reflexive usage of language and is inimical to the Left’s battle. By no means does changing the language of the issue make America a more equitable society. The word poor is an effective word simply because poverty is a crushing issue. Using the word ‘Poor’ agitates, inflames, and instigates because we all know that its effects are not in the self interest of society at large.
In conclusion, this essentially comes down to evaluating the means we have at our disposal to produce the ends we wish for.Without money, political clout, or monopoly on the use of force, the means we have are organizational power. Social change requires provocation, conflict, a struggle for power. In this struggle the role of language cannot be understated. Frame your issue with the language that inspires and brings life to a community, not the language that masks reality.