A recently proposed amendment in Kansas demonstrates how one word can affect an entire argument. An organization called "Cures without Cloning" proposed an amendment to modify current regulations on the cloning of human cells. The group's intent was to make cloning regulations stricter. However, after the ballot measure was proposed, members of the organization were infuriated because of the confusing and misleading way in which the proposal was worded.
The summary for the proposal claimed that it aimed "to repeal the current ban on human cloning or attempted cloning and to limit Missouri patients’ access to stem cell research, therapies and cures approved by voters in November 2006," to "criminalize and impose civil penalties for some currently allowed research, therapies and cures," and to prohibit "hospitals or other institutions from using public funds to conduct such research." The language use at the beginning of these statements is contradicting and obscures the purpose of the amendment. The members of Cures without Cloning desire to add to the current ban on cloning and to propose greater restrictions, moving toward an eventual ban on all types of cloning. The word "repeal" suggests that the group wants to get rid of the current human cloning ban rather than strengthen it. The other examples of wording are consistent with the goal of the group, but the first statement makes the purpose unclear. Although only one word seems out of place, that one word can change the context of the entire statement. The influence of word choice in portraying an idea or an argument is incredibly significant.
It is interesting to take into consideration the word usage in the article itself. The article uses the word "cloning" multiple times. Cloning tends to have a negative connotation, appearing unnatural and unhuman. Advocates of the cloning of human stem cells tend to refer to the process as "stem cell research". Stem cell research tends to have more positive imagery, suggesting a very scientific process with a goal at hand that may beneficial to human life. Word choice carries a personality with it, and a concept can be seen in a positive or negative light based on the word used to represent it.
Using word choice to influence a reader or listener is a skill that is omnipresent in the world today. Politicians use word choice to sway the opinions of the people and to make their arguments sound convincing and favorable. Organizations in favor of a certain belief or idea will use different words depending on which stance they take on an issue. The phrases "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice" are common examples of this. Both create positive images for each side of the abortion argument. Pro-Life advocates tend to emphasize the "murder" of an "unborn child", whereas Pro-Choice supporteres stress the importance of women's rights and a biological view of the "unborn child" as not yet human. And who is to say that those in favor of the abortion option aren not in favor of life and those who are against abortion are not in favor of choices? But the wording makes it appear so. Words can be intercchanged to convey one idea in several perspectives, and the connotation that a word carries can strongly influence the opinion of a person who reads or hears it.
Links:
Very nice analysis of this topic. Can you think of a way in which we could scientifically test this hypothesis that these words really influence people's thinking and judgments of the issue?
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree that words carry with them whole histories of connotations, and what words you use to introduce someone to a new topic could permanently influence their view of the topic. I have always wondered how significant this power in compared to others, such as political or religious views, in influencing people's support for specific issues. Take a Democrat who has never cared for abortion issues before, and present to him the "murder of an unborn child" argument, for example. Do you think he would side with the traditionally Democratic pro-choice support, or adopt pro-life views?
ReplyDeleteI think an interesting experiment would be to expose two different groups of people (randomly selected and a representative sample) to different phrases that carried different connotations. For example, using the phrase "pro-choice" in one group and "murder of an unborn child" and seeing to what degree people rank them (scale of 1-10) as being acceptable or not. This could be difficult because obviously people's personal beliefs will intervene. I heard of an experiment where people watched two cars crashing and then were questioned. The questioners in each group referred to the cars as "smashing" together, "hitting" each other, or just "bumping" each other. Then the people who watched the accident were asked questions. Those who had the cars described to them as smashing were more likely to describe the accident as violent and severe, whereas those who just heard that the cars bumped together were more likely to see the accident as less dangerous. The words that primed the conversation influenced the way that the people remembered it.
ReplyDelete