The Mel Factor: What happens when your ego grows faster than your vocabulary

Current events have shown a dark side of our language: its potential as a weapon. Words are a developed cultural symbolism used to convey thoughts and ideas. Human imagination doesn't always produce words of sweetness and light, as we know. Humans also possess a built-in gatekeeper, call it conscience, morality, ethics, good up-bringing, manners, etc. which guards the door of the mouth to prevent the issuing forth of harsh and hurtful speech. What happens when our gatekeeper is asleep at his post?

Once in a while we may be so emotionally moved that we speak more loudly, more emphatically, more pointedly, or more critically than we normally would. Once in a while we may be called upon to behave in a fairly aggressive defensive manner due to an injustice. I'm not talking about those cases.

I'm talking about the person who, with little provocation, uses language to pummel someone in an effort to demean them. The word-bully who shouts insults at the top of his/her voice, red in the face, neck cords straining, and spittle flying, so full of his/her own self-justified rage as to be completely unconcerned with any feelings but his/her need to annihilate. Not surprisingly, verbal bullies are deeply unimaginative, using more expletives than logic, sort of a cross between grade-school potty mouth and seriously egocentric adult narcissism. We'll call it the Mel Factor. Some verbal bullies erupt on any hapless victim. Most tend to pick a familiar (read family) victim, smaller and weaker, which gives them the illusion of power without any of the risks. Recent events have taught us that one does not have to be a scholar to catch the public imagination by the language one uses.

Words used to belittle, intimidate, and mortify are as surely abuse as a slap to the face. The unbridled use of abusive language, combined with overbearing physicality and menace is the fallback of a small and insecure personality. Unable to reason calmly and to generously allow for differences of style and opinion, one cannot entertain a position that is not his/her own. Or will not, having assumed the self-appointed role of the all-knowing OZ. Better to not have the ability to speak at all than to misuse it as some do.

Words to Spend

Americans are a rich people. No matter our income we all have a wealth of words available for expressing whatever profound thought or hare-brained notion we wish. We have had words lavished upon us by generations past, and when we are bored with those, we make new ones. No one ever had less excuse for expressing themselves poorly than we do.

Think of it as a pocket full of words to spend, and a great, spacious-wide day to spend them in. Speak of a resplendent sunrise, sparkling dew, a downy-haired child. Or it can be a chilly dawn, a hazy sky, a smoggy drive. We have the tools to say exactly what we see, hear, think and feel. You don't have to be lyrical or break into song, just add detail - a little shine. Feeling a little self-conscious? Write your words instead - describe your excellent or awful day, your new car, your present mood or condition. Write so clearly and expressively that your great-great grandchildren, on reading what you've written, will see your day, feel your mood, smell the new car smell.

You have a great bounty of words to spend; it's the one area, even in a bad economy, that you don't have to scrimp. Don't just talk - spellbind, intrigue, edify. Language is a gift. The ability to fully communicate is a blessing. Don't squander it.

Choosing the Right (or Left): Using words to construct a social contract

When the United States Constitution was written, a number of men of wide-ranging beliefs and experience gathered together to labor under the exigency of securing their terribly important and hard-won experiment in ideal society. After extensive debate, they still could not completely agree, even though they had virtually all read and subscribed to the same overarching political philosophies. Why is this so? And what has it meant to us?

First, it is important to consider the broad spectrum of personalities and backgrounds. The majority were lawyers, but a good number were merchants, financiers, businessmen, or scholars. Many owned agricultural property; some held slaves, and others strictly opposed slavery. A few were clergy. Most were well educated. Either by virtue of birthright, or by exceptional motivation and intelligence, many attended the finest schools in the colonies. A good number rose from fairly modest circumstances and others were markedly wealthy. A few were first-generation immigrants, but at least one was a Plymouth pilgrim descendant. All were considered their state's brightest and best, and were likely elected to their seat in the Constitutional Convention because they represented the attitudes and expectations of their individual constituencies. Perhaps most importantly, all believed firmly in the importance of forming a free society that could endure.

This is where the dilemma arose. Each understood certain key words differently: freedom, democracy, republicanism, federalism, confederalism, to name a few. Probably every man saw the American experiment as unique, groundbreaking and an outgrowth of the human need to live according to the dictates of one's conscience. They just saw it in a different way, in different terms. Central government or loose confederation of states? A dominant executive, or a strictly apportioned senate? These consideration and hundreds more occupied them until they were worn down by the effort. In the end, each had to capitulate to the reality that they would never, could never agree. The final product was a study in compromise, somewhat unwillingly attained. Ratification by disgruntled states took over three more years.

The great genius of the Constitution is that the words everyone finally signed off on were so open to interpretation. So not etched in stone, so debatable. The lifeblood of the Constitution is not that is spells everything out. It is that it provided a sturdy enough framework that succeeding generations could build and rebuild within its principles to spell their own words - to fashion a government that works for all generations. Since its ratification, the Constitution has undergone 27 amendments. It is a testament to our faith in the original document that we do not take these changes lightly or come by them easily.

Even the founding fathers, with all their background in political philosophy, enlightenment theory, classical republicanism and Greek democratic ideology could not hammer out a precise document, because they could not predict future imperatives. Fundamentally, they all understood the necessity of self-determination but could not agree on the words which could exactly define each's vision of that goal. Nearly every man walked away from his signature deeply dissatisfied with the resulting document. In all their brilliance, they did not understand that the very ambiguity of the Constitution was its strength. To last it could not be inflexible: like a tall building built to flex in the wind, or move slightly with the shifting of the ground, the Constitution was built to both shelter and to stand.

The Ephemeral Word

What a great thing words are. And how temporary!

I just finished “The World Without Us” in which Weisman describes the project to send into space a token “piece” of our civilization – in this case the Voyager spacecraft bearing a gold-plated copper analog disc. The challenge was, in 12 inches, to inscribe sound and images that would represent us to another civilization millions of years (and light-years) away. Since surely language would have developed differently in this far-off place, how do we make the recipient understand the message? Or even how to access it from the disc?

I would like to think that there is a universal language in the shape of a pure intelligence. Funny how we can know, across language barriers, about emotion, compassion, friendship. For those of us looking forward to something after this life, we are reassured that when the organization of symbols we call language disappears, we will all still know what is meant.