jurnal.eidotomic

We have all been saturated with the social malformations of language. We must all have had our intimate gutful of this deviation-strewn kind of language that we use either in our daily communication or in our fairly more seldom written discourses. Even giving a few examples, which language is so fraught with, would seem a linguistic blasphemy for the honest, and for the snob-free, and for what they have to say, and how they say it. I’ll nevertheless become purposefully blasphemous with the sole intention to set an example of negative linguistic talking and to make a point thereof. So, although the full list of blasphemous linguistic malformations may to some be as long as language itself, I’ll here only give a short version of it, comprised of just a few items.

Chairperson is to be considered among the crown jewels of such a list, alongside every human occupation that has not so of late anymore become ridiculously both asexual and genderless, as if those belonging to all the trades man (and woman, and now person) concerned himself (herself, and, perhaps, personself) with in history have somewhat suddenly lost their physiological identity to nameless, faceless, and soulless biologically relevant humans. Unfortunately, this loss of sexual identity is also a gender levelling of all of us who, according to this sexless and genderless langue de bois, have dared to remain the man or the woman we were born to be. Being nothing but persons in this world is frightingly similar to being simple items to be ticked away on their list of friends, colleagues or mere acquaintances.

Physically or, for that matter, mentally challenged individuals, and all those for whom something in their human nature is at any given time being challenged by whatever interior or exterior conditions, make the rest of this list of blasphemous language, as well as the bulk of it. As there are probably quite a handful of persons being challenged in whatever abnormality, shortcoming, or sheer want of whatever sort, I can only imagine that, if I were to list really everybody, they would by far exceed, in the list filling-in, all the positions occupied by those lacking full organic identity, who thus end up being ultimately challenged, too. Not knowing that this way of communication has such a touch of circularity to it, I can now only imagine how hard it must be for these politically correct talkers to get out of this never stopping circle of language, and break its eternal going around itself, and take a good look outside it, to see what normal language looks like. Unfortunately, the fast spinning of the language circle at the centre of which they are now finding themselves has blinded them fast, and the ever faster rotation of its circumference seems only to blind them even faster.

Alas, that is not all this linguistic circuloid is about. If it were so, I would now be more than content with its imperfect roundness that can still give way, right into its gravitational core, to some minuscule vents through which the freshness of the normal language may enter. So, these tiny rents in the geometry of the language circle are yet to come into being and are equally hoped for just as yet. Where they should have been, nothing is seen on the circularity of this circle of language but the insidious shadow of yet another circle that is smaller, and more rotational, and is spinning in a more accelerated manner than its exterior sibling, which is cast, almost as if to illuminate them, on ever more linguistic malformations. These are even more polluting and much harder to track down or stay away from. They are no longer toying with the morphological nature of language, adding or subtracting, at will, the sexual affiliations and the gender identities of those they do refer to. Instead, they leave language morphologically pristine and they don’t alter its lexical countenance at all. These more concentric malformations of language are in for the fathomless depths of language, wherein they reside, touching no part of its outer shell. Simply put, they are just not that superficial anymore to meddle with the exterior, which is shallow anyway, when they have at their disposal the unsounded pits of its interior. This is, perhaps, the true politically correct language that one has to stay away from; the kind of language that has wickedly evolved into a way of communication no longer recognizable by its linguistic deviations: a way of communication whose trademark is invisible, and yet much more powerful and lethal than ever before.

Even though it goes by no known name, it is called by so many names, that language itself seems to have become its name. Even though it sits much closer to the centre of the circle of language, in a place which would under other circumstances be more obscure to the world outside its gravitational pull, it has considerably more power than its predecessor, and is obviously geometrically superior than its precursor, and pulls everybody in straight into its grasp.

Afro-American, or Native American would surely be on top of its list. Then, just a few items farther down, Asian American (as diversified into as Chinese American, Japanese American, South East Asian American) and, more recently, even Muslim American. So, these malformations are contorting language, for all their pretentiousness of clarity by subcategorizing the already classifiable, in an even more uncouth fashion, which is that of forsaking scientific precision for the sake of urbane gentility. According to these idioms, the circle of language cannot come full circle until each of its countless radii is given a name that would quite inevitably leave its diameter, and its centre, completely nameless. If these American-hyphenated constructions are the radii of this dour circle of language, what name does its diameter, and even its nameless, yet not anonymous, centre, go by? It must certainly bear a name by which it can be recognized as such, and in relation to which all the other named names are to be called as such. This unnamed name no one can really utter must surely have its own phonetic contour, too. That it sits at the centre of the circle of language is almost unquestionable; that it sometimes even is the centre of the circle of language ought already to have been well beyond any question by now. That it only cares for its named anonymity, and for its unnamed name, is a linguistic fact of life no one seems to care about. Yet, it is it that all the other hyphenators originate from, and in relation to which all of them are named after. If, indeed, this politically incorrect language were to be politically correct, this originator of categories, and this namer of names would undoubtedly be on top of its own list, and at the top of its very gravitational pull. Since, however, language has long been malformed by these blasphemous deviations it itself has spawned, and sprouted, and spurred, which it calls its circuloid radii, and its politically correct communication mode, it is no wonder it doesn’t even remember anymore what it is, and what its unnamed name is. I’ll then remind it of its long unuttered name, and I’ll say it in relation to all the names it has been hyphenating all this time: Euro-American, or, in its full form, European-American.

Now, the malformative potential of language, as informed by those who have upheld it, is completely revealed. If this hadn’t been deviatory, we could have been able to say, rather uniformly, both Afro-American, when referring to those originating from the African continent, and Euro-American, when referring to those originating from the European continent. If the so-called politically correct language hadn’t been so deeply politically incorrect, there would have been a natural evenness in the distribution of these artificial appellations, and an Afro-American would truly have been equal to a Euro-American, both in civil rights, and in linguistic usage. That this isn’t the case is being proved by the fact that black people are still referred to, in the most urbane of ways, as Afro-Americans, whereas white people may never be referred to, in the same most urbane of ways, as Euro-Americans. So, it is exactly this lack of linguistic equality that makes the politically correct language be profoundly politically incorrect. Then, it is exactly this cornucopia of linguistic malformations that sets me so vigorously against it. Finally, it is exactly this absence in the circularity of the circle of language that prevents it from coming full circle in the presence of all its radii, and its diameter, and its centre, all evenly named by their utterable names, and all equally baptized in the true spirit of a real politically correct language.