Groups without a shared political language produce only inarticulate noise

Evidence

It is certainly reasonable of critics to warn of the permanent possibility that the search for a common language may not be as successful as some think: that the allegedly common language may construct some grievances in a way that distorts them. But it cannot be right that the search for a common language of articulation is inherently flawed. For unless different groups can find a common language in which to talk of their problems, the complaints of each group will be nothing but noise in the ears of the others; they will have the status, and the insignificance, of inarticulate mewlings. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 605

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Sharp articulation of why the quest for a common political language of articulation is necessary despite its dangers of distortion.
  • DEEPTHINKING: An exceptionally dense reframing: the search for a shared articulation language is not merely defensible but necessary, because the alternative for each group is being heard as ‘inarticulate mewlings’ — a claim that turns a common worry (that common language is coercive) on its head.
  • XREF: connects to: Even complete silence in a group expresses a generative theme. — Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 304; Masses stay silent because speech is taken away, not because of emptiness — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 732; Totalitarian collective language is as vacuous as private stylistic caprice — Theodor W. Adorno, Minima Moralia: Reflections from…, 237 (+3 more)

Broader Connections