It's an interesting idea. I see your point, but I see hers as well. The irony, to me, is that you dislike words like "retarded" and "lame" to mean stupid or weak, because they have their basis in negative connotations of disabled people, even though they tend not to be used that way anymore. But you poked and prodded at the teacher to see beyond the connotation of a word she found distasteful. Heh.
Did the rest of the class think it was possible to manipulate the system? that far less likely than changing how you interact with or view the system...
Ooooooh! What a great debate! Off the top of my head "manipulate" changes a behavior without changing any underlying motivation. It's as if "manipulate" tricks someone into doing something they don't want to, rather than having the desired behavior follow from a new line of thinking.
"Hypnotize" might have been a more satisfactory word. Or "Brain Wash." (Where can I get me some?)
anyone remember Tawana Brawley?
I've very cautiously entered into a similar debate about terminology with a few parents and "play pen", which now seems to be verboten - it's a "play yard" (I think? That seems so wrong...). Just because adults generally associate "pens" with farm animals doesn't mean you drop all other meanings of the word. Plus how is going to give a 9 month old a complex? Animals are cool!
On the other hand, I could see how even a logical or broad minded teacher might be hesitant to add "manipulate" to a social worker description - even if she didn't ended up lambasted in the college newspaper (soon picked up by the town newspaper on a slow news day), it could give the wrong message to those in the class with their own egos and subconcious (power) reasons for being there. I agree with you about the manipulation, but I also agree that it's a tough line to toe without going into the negative connotations. Just like your and your friend's stories about trying to access services you have every right to, those dispensing those services have an automatic power that's difficult to equalize even with the best of intentions. Although in reality, I think most social workers feel rather powerless and frustrated dealing with the system and with clients who can't get manipulated, even when they want to.
I love reading your blog; you always give me something to think about. Interesting perspective on word connotation.
Language geeks (I took tons of language courses at MIT...I count as one!) need to remember that "common usage", which does NOT always match the dictionary definition, especially the nuance part of it, affects people greatly, and non-language geeks won't get it at all.
The term manipulation when applied to people, in common usage, is assumed to mean _without_ the contract you mentioned.
Of course, we do have to have another agreement, or contract, to use the same vocabulary, so that we don't get hung up on things like this....even if you were technically correct, most people simply can't understand the distinction. I've gotten caught by this sort of issue so many times...
I remember briefly taking an intro to Social Psychology course. The prof showed a famous NFB anti-porn film. When we discussed it afterwards, I was the only person to object to the anti-porn premise. The professor made it very clear that he was right and I was insane for thinking that porn was anything other than pure evil.
With that great start to the course, I dropped it.
Commenting by HaloScan
