'The Early Death and Inevitable Rebirth of 'Message' Politics"

I attended another great lecture this evening, this one in the anthropological vein with linguistic elements (rather than a discussion of literature as the last one I discussed on the blog). It was entitled "The Early Death and Inevitable Rebirth of 'Message' Politics," by Michael Silverstein.
I find that I gain more from these lectures hosted by the academic departments with featured speakers than the class lectures in those same departments. But I'm fairly convinced that's a matter of my treatment of it, because I get genuinely excited for a fresh speaker - what a special opportunity at our university - don't know what to expect beyond what I infer from a well-crafted title... whereas for the courses in which I'm enrolled, it's: oh hey here are the basic tenets of the argument in that article - please share your interpretations of the reading - don't forget your papers are due next class. Oh! - There's maybe a better reason. Everyone who attends these departmental lectures is interested in the subject. They aren't required to attend; therefore, attendance tends to be sparser but discussion is palpably charged, listeners are thoroughly engaged and responsive to the ideas set forth. Heh, and the professor-to-student ratio is much more in favor of the professors.
Okay, okay.

So the lecture itself was on "message" politics, especially in regards to the current presidential campaign. Michael Silverstein is important in the field of linguistic anthropology, highly influential in shaping the way theorists study language in the social context. He's also well-informed in American political history, which he demonstrated tonight. This particular discussion took on the idea of how these messages or brands of the politicians have re-emerged in this electoral cycle as negative messaging. He outlined the rhetorical styles of both Barack Obama and John McCain, the combination African-American pulpit style meeting American civil rhetoric in Obama, and the so-called "straight-talk express" of McCain.
Silverstein definitely drew some laughs when he took some time to decode what he termed the "concept soup" of Sarah Palin's speech - giving examples of these syntactic stretches she joins by seemingly arbitrary connectives. He compared these to the responses that professors are so accustomed to reading on exams, those written by students who only half paid attention in class and have memorized a few key phrases to string together without understanding their meanings. He also discussed the new linguistic features of web campaigning (hey out there, blogosphere!), the trope of place as a source for the essential quality of a candidate (as understood by the media machine), the escalation of campaign slogans and how they play off of each other, and much more that he was able to convey in that hour or so.

A lot of what Silverstein relates to this week's "This American Life" broadcast. You can listen to the program online - follow that link or download it on iTunes. It's a quick, down-and-dirty, yet informative, look at how the presidential candidates are faring in the state of Pennsylvania. There are stories from both the Obama and McCain camps, and what especially struck me was the interviews with self-proclaimed racists who are proud to admit that they're voting for McCain because they're not going to let a black man into office. Honestly, what year is this?

And funneling down to the local level... High heel drag queen race in Dupont tomorrow! Parade from 7 to 9pm on 17th Street between Church and R Streets NW, followed by a race of queens kickin' off at 9. I'm goin' with co-workers, slingin' that cam, and postin' right here soon. See you all there!

That beautiful point in October.

Alright, so I'm currently buried deep in schoolwork for midterms, but setting goals anyway. This simply includes finding the time to read a little for myself, getting refreshed on my own fiction-writing, and enjoying the last of the warm weather. Sleep is unfortunately minimal, but there will be time enough for that soon. It's important to have one's priorities in check!

I went to a talk on Monday night by Suhayl Saadi, a Scottish writer and our own British Council Writer in Residence here at George Washington University. His mastery of language is absolutely astounding. And not only of the English language (that's tough enough); he weaves words and phrases adopted from languages such as Urdu into his novel, even changing or combining the words. Supposedly his first novel, Psychoraag (2004), includes a glossary for readers. He stressed the importance of translating more writing, stating that many people are limited to Anglophone texts because not enough literature is translated into English. He explained the essential connections between music and words and silence. I want to attempt Psychoraag when I'm up to the challenge: it's massive, it's multilingual, and it's difficult. He confronts the realms of dreams, alchemy, and space.
We talked for awhile afterwards about the difficulties of finding satisfaction in one's work - he admits going through an average of fifteen drafts of everything he writes, from newspaper articles or radio plays, to short stories or novels. Saadi says that as human beings and as writers, "we've experienced all the possible emotions - the rest is research." Writing is a collective act, of course - we all try to know another. I'm inspired. I'm certain I can make it happen.

Steven Pinker - The Stuff of Thought

If anyone's in search of a good - yet intellectually stimulating - book, take a look at Steven Pinker's The Stuff of Thought.
I'm not quite through all of it, but it's a well-researched and accessible read on our speech and what we can learn about our minds through language. I couldn't recommend this more highly for anyone interested in the fields of linguistics, anthropology, or psychology. And it's a scholarly read but doesn't read like a textbook. The examples he chooses are fascinating, and I can apply almost every one to my own use of speech in daily life. There's a bit of an eye-opener when he discusses the distinction between predicating and referring (in the chapter, "Cleaving the Air") in reference to how Google sells noun phrases. Apparently - I didn't previously know this - Google became hugely successful because of its ability to generate successful clicks for advertisers based on a sort of graduated cost system. For example, displaying your company's website in the primary results for the search phrase "digital cameras" is more expensive than for "digital camera" because in the former, which is more referential, the person is likely to be researching brands to buy, while in the latter, generic singular phrase, the person searching is probably just curious about how digital cameras work. Therefore, plurals are more expensive than singulars. Great stuff.