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.

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.