The Tone Argument and Social Price

[melanoman]

The term "persons of diversity" came up in the Language Log. It's a newly coined lexical item used to mean "people belonging to groups that were historically excluded [from X]" where X is drawn from the context but is always something where inclusion is socio-economically desirable. This coinage is super-new, but will probably catch on in American Boardroom Dialects for technical linguistic reasons that I don't want to go into here.

What I did want to talk about was that the early comments on the subject were overwhelmingly looking to deny the existence of the term. The comments felt... out of character for the board. It nagged me until I realized that this felt just like the Tone Argument. I wrote this comment about that:

At the risk of going off-topic for the log, strong reactions to terms that come up addressing racism are common, so much so that most discussion groups dedicated to analyzing, addressing, or otherwise discussing racism have coined the term "the tone argument" to refer to a way-too-common tactic of derailing the discussion. The derailer will talk about terms and politeness to shift blame for his or her own discomfort onto the person pointing out the uncomfortable truth.

The tone argument can't be accommodated. Begrudging members of the discussion aren't really objecting to the words, but to the very idea that they need to do something about the unfair advantages or even that those unfair advantages exist.

Even though the attempts are in vain, people in those discussions will and do try to accommodate the inconsolable. Trying to say something when someone is trying to squelch the idea is inherently broken. They end up coining increasingly opaque terms, which is where monstrosities like this really come from.

The annoying part of all that is that by arguing for the plainer terms instead of the obfuscated ones, that just adds to the distraction from the core argument.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying discussion of the terms nor GKP's reaction are at all out of bounds nor objectionable. This is the Language Log, so the discussion of terms is core to the purpose of this forum. "The tone argument" is about squelching people in other forums by changing the topic from the subject matter to the expression thereof.

I was satisfied with my analysis of the subject, but that disclaimer at the end bugs me. The social pressure got me to specifically exempt Dr. Pullum, and in doing so I took the edge off raising the question fully. I wonder if anyone in the forum will get the connection between trying to reinterpret the semantics of the new lexical item and the tone argument itself. I think I managed to get the worst of both worlds where I will pay the social price for touching on the taboo point, but without actually getting that point across. Damn.

Comments

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

I think I managed to get the worst of both worlds where I will pay the social price for touching on the taboo point, but without actually getting that point across. Damn.

welcome to dealing w/ real people and their privilege.

i think that last paragraph manages to confuses the issue - you didn't provide a single example of in context relevance, but you provided a negative space in context.

which is to say, you've left people a place to try to cram themselves when trying to avoid the sharp edges of the tone argument.

a second pass

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

what gkp seems to be objecting to is the "marking by contrast" of the unmarked status of the normatively privileged group "straight white male".

the argument seems to go:
1) marking disprivileged groups sets apart any group not marked as such
2) why are you picking on straight white males?
3) why are straight white males subject to so much criticism?
4) this criticism constitutes disprivilege also.

understanding why 2 is a wrong question requires a long discussion of privilege.

Re: a second pass

[zzyzx-xyzzy.livejournal.com]

I thought I read GKP analyzing the phrase as an attempt to defuse or skirt (2), and supporting that goal in principle. I didn't see him getting around to explaining why he didn't like the phrase despite claimed support of the goal....

My first gloss of the phrase "practitioner of diversity" in the first quote was indeed along the lines of "someone who works at promoting diversity," but I bought the later argument about unqualified "practitioner" being fairly normal lawyer-speak. I mostly find the usage confusing, as diversity seems like a property of groups, not individuals, so I came up with the wrong reading on the first pass. I wonder why something like 'underrepresented" doesn't serve the purpose.

Re: a second pass

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

i seriously doubt "practioner of diversity" is going to take.

Re: a second pass

[pielology.livejournal.com]

I think "diversity" is not as firmly a property of groups as "underrepresented" - consider someone remarking "oh hey, now we've got some diversity in this room" when a person of color walks in, or a chair musing that they need more diversity on a committee and asking the department's token woman. Yeah, those are still technically statements about groups, but it's pretty clear which individuals are "diverse".

Or maybe it's just that "diversity" is more common than "underrepresented" and therefore more ripe for appropriation.

[mhnicholson.livejournal.com]

My impression is that this pair of lexemes has reversed in that respect of the last 20 years or so. In the late 80s, "diversity" only referred to groups, and "underrepresented" was often used to refer to an individual, especially with respect to discussions of affirmative action and the like. Unfortunately I spent the late 80s in Berkeley, so the Berkeleyness of discussions I would have been hearing at the time may disqualify that data point.

[pielology.livejournal.com]

I tried to think up a good Google test, but failed.

a third comment

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

i don't think "person of diversity" will take - in the long term.

people who have been excluded will not self-identify as a "person of diversity" because their particular form of diversity is highly salient to themselves and their identity.

if it is imposed from the outside (i.e. by non-group members of excluded groups), then it will rankle people who are members of groups that have been excluded. compare: oriental v. asian, colored person v. person of color, handicapped v. disabled v. differently abled

further, the fact that "diversity" here only makes sense in terms of who has been excluded and who has been included will create more of a problem. "diversity" here isn't about a diversity of groups, but about who has been kept from the table by those at the table.

when that last part is parsed out, the backlash will make the "of diversity" usage drop out the american boardroom dialect because of the radioactive fallout.

* * *

gkp needs to look into the privileged status of the non-"of diversity" group members - which he does clearly identify. if he does that, he can start to understand the dynamic that makes him unhappy.

Re: a third comment

[pielology.livejournal.com]

people who have been excluded will not self-identify as a "person of diversity" because their particular form of diversity is highly salient to themselves and their identity

As a woman in a traditionally male field, I disagree. Yes, my particular form of diversity is highly salient, but there are also times where the relevant feature is simply the fact that I don't look or act quite like most people expect someone who does my job to look. I won't use it as a generic identity marker but I can definitely imagine using it in the context of activism aimed at particular power structures, especially when I am trying to ally with others who have been excluded.

"diversity" here only makes sense in terms of who has been excluded and who has been included [...]. "diversity" here isn't about a diversity of groups, but about who has been kept from the table by those at the table.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. The fact that "person of diversity" focuses attention on the way people at the table are excluding others, rather than getting lost in the myriad ways this shakes out when it comes to particular groups, is why I think it will be a successful term.

Re: a third comment

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

I won't use it as a generic identity marker

i think this goes to my point.

but I can definitely imagine using it in the context of activism aimed at particular power structures, especially when I am trying to ally with others who have been excluded.

this makes me wonder at how much activism you've done especially at the coalition building level. common bond is more effective in coalition by celebrating differences instead of trying to erase them. erasure is one of the active sore points in much activism - a problem that gets analyzed as assimilation, internalized oppression, normativity, role rigidity, etc.

an example of erasure that make many anti-racist activist annoyed/upset is the notion of "colorblind" - the notions that seeing race is racist and that race shouldn't matter with the important unstated parenthetical (and therefore we will pretend it already doesn't matter). the former notion means that no discussion about racism can even be framed, and the latter notion flies in the face of reality - race shouldn't matter, but it does matter right now. this what happens when salient features of an oppression are erased.

examples of erasure happen to transgender people w/ the lgbt community and even more so in the larger straight community. not being erased is very much taken as matter of survival by transgender people.

i also think "of diversity" will shine unwanted light on the issue of "token" hires.

Re: a third comment

[mhnicholson.livejournal.com]

It depends what you mean by "the long term." I doubt this term will have the utility to span generations, but I expect it will enter the lexicon and stay there for a time measured in years, not months. It is way too soon to predict multi-generational staying power, but the odds are against it since the space high a very high turnover rate recently.

Take a look at your own usage in your critique/prediction:

"...their particular form of diversity..."

You are using then underlying lexical basis where "diversity" takes on the key semantics of exclusion/underrepresentation. This term is sticky.

Imposed terms get adopted for self-identification all the time. You listed "colored" as an imposed term, but it is still part of the NAACP name. The fact that they are now discarded doesn't change the fact that those terms were common for decades.

I know that as a thinker you are inclined to think of how things get parsed out when thought about logically, but logic is always trumped by convenience when it comes to common usage.

This term also has a major social backing you haven't considered. White cisgendered women can include themselves in this term and are therefore highly likely to prefer programs that address their needs as white women of programs more specifically targeted at people of color. White women have a massive sway over boardroom dialect, especially compared to the other people of diversity. (I tried really hard to avoid the term here, but right now I don't have another shared term to use without innovating --- the term is both sticky and useful)

Re: a third comment

[mhnicholson.livejournal.com]

Bad typo: "...white women of programs..." should be "...white women versus programs..."

Re: a third comment

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

I know that as a thinker you are inclined to think of how things get parsed out when thought about logically, but logic is always trumped by convenience when it comes to common usage.

i'm think long term it will be inconvenient to use this term this way - due to backlash.

White cisgendered women can include themselves in this term and are therefore highly likely to prefer programs that address their needs as white women of programs more specifically targeted at people of color.

this is a topic unto itself.

especially compared to the other people of diversity

i think this will contribute to the discussion of privilege/kyriarchy v. racism separate from sexism separate from homophobia separate from transphobia etc

unlike previous imposed terms, this term clearly marks out those who included most often - straight white able-bodied cisgender men. that's what's going to piss people off, especially when swacm go around denying their privilege.

if i thought various oppressed group were prepared to work intersectionally, i would give it some chance of survival, and even a chance of wider usuage.

the term is sticky, useful, and toxic.

"them" v. "us"

[stoneself.livejournal.com]

Imposed terms get adopted for self-identification all the time. You listed "colored" as an imposed term, but it is still part of the NAACP name. The fact that they are now discarded doesn't change the fact that those terms were common for decades.

the history of many imposed terms is different then than it is now.

as a social phenomena, i see the need for "of diversity" related to the sense that those traditionally with the most power feeling besieged - thus terms to declare "them" vs an unnamed "us".

this is a significantly different stance in two ways. first, previous stances were clearly about superiority and inferiority. second, the previous imposed terms left a larger "us" - if the "them" is drawn on race, then there is a large number of "us", homosexuality: large "us", etc. however, "of diversity" casts far more people as "them" and far fewer as "us".

* * *

as a general observation:

as a power dynamic in kyriarchy, the prime power holders depend on power lent to them by the oppressed with privileges intersecting the privileges of the prime power holders. this framing will places the prime power holders in opposition to the union of those who are oppressed.

Re: "them" v. "us"

[mhnicholson.livejournal.com]

The most common person there is the white male, who generally does *not* feel besieged. After all, the civil rights movement was about half a century ago and there still aren't many (or often any) black people around in the meeting, except maybe as a guest speaker. The white women are comfortably white, and the Asians there are typically quite white-ish.

The class is typically being run by an outside contractor who is nominally teaching the people how to embrace these lofty goals but really teaching the people how not to get sued. This person is almost always a white woman whose business is dependent on getting invited to do this again. Her ticket to that invitation is to get through things as quickly as allowed without making the people present (who are mostly white and mostly male) too uncomfortable.

What makes (many of those) people uncomfortable is having to confront the details of being oppressed or their agency in that. The term "person of diversity" is a thoroughly generic term that includes none of those details. It can be said quickly and cover that ground theoretically without actually having to confront any of the unpleasant details.

The biggest threat to adoption of this term isn't backlash. It's the development of an alternative.