Linguistic Power Plays and Bad Writing

Some of the specific parts of the history of the African American struggle distinguish it from the histories of other oppressed groups; although, the basis for the oppression for many groups seems similar. The following quote is demonstrative of this interchangeability “Race[/gender] has become a trope of ultimate, irreducible difference between cultures, linguistic groups, or adherents of specific belief systems which-more often than not- also have fundamentally opposed economic interests… Yet we carelessly use language in such a way to will this sense of natural difference into our formulations,” (Gates 5). Opposed economic interests does seem to get at the heart of the struggle, but money is only one manifestation of power. “Current language use signifies the difference between cultures and their possession of power,” (Gates 6). Could instances of discrimination (linguistic and otherwise) be manifestations of megalomania?  Neophobia would not be an exception: discrimination on this basis would be an attempt to gain power over the neophobic person’s fear of the “other.” Gates has stated that “to explicate discourse itself [is] in order to reveal the hidden relations of power and knowledge inherent in popular and academic usages of ‘race.’" I digress, this analysis is psychological, and outside my academic specialization.

Returning to a linguistic focus for the “othering” means of oppression, “these terms are arbitrary constructs, not reports of reality. But language is not only the medium of this often insidious tendency; it is its sign” (Gates 6). Terministic screens may be (un)intentionally implemented for means of oppression. Being highly lingual creatures, terminstic screens allow individuals to identify with fellow oppressors while simultaneously disidentifying with their victims.

To address the piece by Johnson: it is unfortunate a brash generalization has occurred with the stereotyping of “the Indian Girl in Modern Fiction;” modern fiction being 1892. I am doubtful that this is an intentional attempt to seize the power held by “Indian Girls” or any other demographic. More likely, I suspect it is the result of unresourceful writers. Another stereotype often appropriated by the inept writer is that of the rebellious adolescent. These blank slates are undeveloped characters, and authors with little relevant personal experience warp them for their own purposes. This will produce unrealistic unrelatable characters. Hence how Johnson, an author with relevant personal experience, is so alienated by this trope of a character. The terministic screens through which these authors are constructing such two-dimensional reveal their lack of applicable information. It may or may not be racist; but it is bad writing, in my opinion.