What do you think?
Rate this book
Plastic Words: The Tyranny of a Modular Language
Development. "Project." "Strategy." "Problem." These may seem like harmless words, but are they? German writer and linguist Uwe Poerksen calls these words "plastic words" because of their malleability and the uncanny way they are used to fit every circumstance. Like plastic Lego blocks, they are combinable and interchangeable. In the mouths of experts—politicians, professors, corporate officials, and planners—they are used over and over again to explain and justify plans and projects. In the 1940s Harry S. Truman made "underdevelopment" a keystone in U.S. foreign policy, and today the "developed" nations are dedicated to helping their "underdeveloped" neighbors. But who benefits from "development"? Who benefited from the housing "projects" of the 1960s and 1970s? And who among us does not worry when our leaders tell us they have a "strategy" for solving society's "problems"? According to Poerksen, plastic words began as scientific words with specialized meanings. Many had been imported from the vernacular languages to the sciences, but he finds that in recent decades they have migrated back into the vernacular—stripped of their specialized meanings. They have international currency and appear repeatedly in political speeches, government reports, and academic conferences. They invade the media and even private conversation. They displace more precise words with words that sound scientific but actually blur meaning and disable common language. Poerksen traces the history of plastic words, establishes criteria for identifying them, and provides a tragicomic critique of the society that relies on them. He shows that when plastic words infiltrate a field of reality, they reorder it in their own image—hence their threat. They are building blocks for new models of reality that may seem utopian but that impoverish the world. Plastic Words is a translation of the remarkably successful book first published in Germany in 1988. For the English-language edition, Poerksen has added a new preface, explaining the origin of the book and addressing the spirited public debate it has spawned. Bold and provocative, Plastic Words is social and linguistic criticism in the tradition of Jonathan Swift and George Orwell.
136 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1995
3 people are currently reading
167 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 20, 2015
Poerksen hits on something that generally irritates most common everyday lay people- the abstraction of expert language. We understand how superfluous and ambiguous statements by said experts are in whatever field they might be. We also find that the media employs this language and as it constantly reports on matters relating to the medical field and health, there is a sea-saw affect on whether wine is good or bad for you, etc. All of this is part of what Poerksen defines as Plastic Words, a modular language that has come to dominate-nay tyrannize- our human experiences regardless of the native languages we speak.
However, I am skeptical in terms of whether this is an avoidable reality. To me, reading Poerksen thesis, I got the sense that this was precisely the direction we were heading in, at least for the developed world. Ever since the Enlightenment, we were banishing from our vocabulary and our thoughts, anything that didnt fit the scientific rigors of hypothesis and test. Here in our language we reflect this desire for precision. Poerksen holds the expert responsible for pushing through concepts and ideas that disregard the individual and the community. There is a salient argument in this, however, Poerksen in my mind fails to point out an alternative. Maybe thats what I was expecting and my expectation was falsely placed.
Besides this facet, I found the book quite compelling and it has gotten me to think about counter terrorism in this same light. We today have counter terrorism experts that bandy about what amounts to plastic words. How is that language destroying lives and destroying Constitutional values today is something that requires further investigation and for this reason alone I feel compelled to recommend this book.
However, I am skeptical in terms of whether this is an avoidable reality. To me, reading Poerksen thesis, I got the sense that this was precisely the direction we were heading in, at least for the developed world. Ever since the Enlightenment, we were banishing from our vocabulary and our thoughts, anything that didnt fit the scientific rigors of hypothesis and test. Here in our language we reflect this desire for precision. Poerksen holds the expert responsible for pushing through concepts and ideas that disregard the individual and the community. There is a salient argument in this, however, Poerksen in my mind fails to point out an alternative. Maybe thats what I was expecting and my expectation was falsely placed.
Besides this facet, I found the book quite compelling and it has gotten me to think about counter terrorism in this same light. We today have counter terrorism experts that bandy about what amounts to plastic words. How is that language destroying lives and destroying Constitutional values today is something that requires further investigation and for this reason alone I feel compelled to recommend this book.
September 7, 2012
An original and penetrating study of how certain words have acquired a 'plasticity' of meaning which allows it to be used to obfuscate, cajole and terrorize the masses, be it at the hands of politicians or journalists, or bandied about nonchalantly in conferences and public lectures. The author provides a list of characteristics common to such 'plastic words' (examples include development, information, relationship, sexuality) and goes on to explore the consequences of the proliferation of such words into our daily 'vernacular' discourse, how it compels blind assent from the speaker and transfers authority from the speaker to the 'experts' (which the author distinguishes from scholars) and how it drains color, tone and diversity from our language and hence, our thoughts. A very useful work with illuminating references to other relevant works (though mostly in German) and should be read in conjunction with Ortega's The Revolt of the Masses, Schumacher's Guide for the Perplexed and Chesterton's What's Wrong with the World? It will also be interesting to contrast his diagnosis of the cause of the 'plastic words' with Prof. Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas's reflections on the scientific nature of the Arabic language in his The Concept of Education in Islam and with Imam al-Ghazali's prescient observation at how the restriction of meanings in words can lead to the disappearance of whole disciplines of knowledge. To my mind, Poerksen's diagnosis may also be used to distinguish between the Qur'anic Arabic and the Modern Arabic, and to demonstrate the superiority of the former.
December 23, 2010
Fascinating look at the breakdown of context in the use of language. Poerksen demonstrates the ways in which language has been allowed to become a 'tyrant', bludgeoning us into the use of a language that has, as another author summarized, "connotation without denotation."
January 6, 2015
My review is here: http://marklindner.info/blog/2005/09/...
Text for SOC 469.04 Seminar in Sociological Institutions with Dr. Richard Stivers Fall 2002. Dates read are estimates.
Text for SOC 469.04 Seminar in Sociological Institutions with Dr. Richard Stivers Fall 2002. Dates read are estimates.
January 13, 2019
Misusing Language: Is the Unexamined Generalist Worthy of Speaking?
“An abstract term is like a box with a false bottom; you put in it what ideas you please, and take them out again without being observed”
---de Tocqueville, “How American Democracy Has Altered the English Language”, Ch 16, “Democracy in America”, 1835. quoted on page 35.
The author argues that modern societies naturally create a class of words that are on one hand so malleable and abstract as to be nearly meaningless, yet on the other hand are coercive and corrupting as they presume the hegemony of a particular world view. Poerksen's list of words in vogue at the time of writing (pp25-26), is as follows:
basic need, care, center, communication, consumption, contact, decision, development, eduation, energy, exchange, factor, function, future, growth, identity, information, living standard, management, model, modernization, partner, planning, problem, process, production, progress, project, raw material, relationship,resource, role, service, sexuality, solution, strategy, structure, substance, system, trend, value, welfare, work.
Poersken is particularly scathing when it comes to “development” and “solution” , which seems related to his own opposition to government policy in his own region of Frieburg, Germany. In the name of “development” he feels that the physical landscape and social structure of the area has been irreparably altered, and for the worse such as in citing “small farmers are losing their land through our activities, we wstill maintain that our projects raise the national production levels.” (pp85) Labelling a program as a “solution” should be highly questionable inasmuch as it presumes that the framework under discussion describes an actual problem, addresses real causes or that it might actually and verifiably work..
Such words have the connotation of being natural, progressive and (in particular) scientific, and that to oppose the underlying package is automatically taken to be reactionary and backward.. He believes itheir function is not to describe but to convince and silence. Politically both left and right use plastic words, though Poersken observes that “the left tends to monumentalize science, the right tends to monumentalize religion.”: Such words to go in and out of fashion, he remarks that the term “plan” in East Germany had “an almost a cult ring to it” and that West Germans were loath to use the phrase “planned economy” but instead invoked “structural politics” (policies might be a better translation) which had the same goal.
It's a short read of about 100 pages. Most of the book is concerned about the concept and use of plastic words, and how their malleability have made them the cornerstone of values and ideas we tend to take for granted. In the appendix Poerksen focuses more on their properties – in particular how they migrate from everyday use to the worlds of science and mathematics and back again, thereby evincing a semblance of considered authority.
Interesting, provocative and moderately interesting, though could have been carried further.
“An abstract term is like a box with a false bottom; you put in it what ideas you please, and take them out again without being observed”
---de Tocqueville, “How American Democracy Has Altered the English Language”, Ch 16, “Democracy in America”, 1835. quoted on page 35.
The author argues that modern societies naturally create a class of words that are on one hand so malleable and abstract as to be nearly meaningless, yet on the other hand are coercive and corrupting as they presume the hegemony of a particular world view. Poerksen's list of words in vogue at the time of writing (pp25-26), is as follows:
basic need, care, center, communication, consumption, contact, decision, development, eduation, energy, exchange, factor, function, future, growth, identity, information, living standard, management, model, modernization, partner, planning, problem, process, production, progress, project, raw material, relationship,resource, role, service, sexuality, solution, strategy, structure, substance, system, trend, value, welfare, work.
Poersken is particularly scathing when it comes to “development” and “solution” , which seems related to his own opposition to government policy in his own region of Frieburg, Germany. In the name of “development” he feels that the physical landscape and social structure of the area has been irreparably altered, and for the worse such as in citing “small farmers are losing their land through our activities, we wstill maintain that our projects raise the national production levels.” (pp85) Labelling a program as a “solution” should be highly questionable inasmuch as it presumes that the framework under discussion describes an actual problem, addresses real causes or that it might actually and verifiably work..
Such words have the connotation of being natural, progressive and (in particular) scientific, and that to oppose the underlying package is automatically taken to be reactionary and backward.. He believes itheir function is not to describe but to convince and silence. Politically both left and right use plastic words, though Poersken observes that “the left tends to monumentalize science, the right tends to monumentalize religion.”: Such words to go in and out of fashion, he remarks that the term “plan” in East Germany had “an almost a cult ring to it” and that West Germans were loath to use the phrase “planned economy” but instead invoked “structural politics” (policies might be a better translation) which had the same goal.
It's a short read of about 100 pages. Most of the book is concerned about the concept and use of plastic words, and how their malleability have made them the cornerstone of values and ideas we tend to take for granted. In the appendix Poerksen focuses more on their properties – in particular how they migrate from everyday use to the worlds of science and mathematics and back again, thereby evincing a semblance of considered authority.
Interesting, provocative and moderately interesting, though could have been carried further.
February 24, 2024
Maybe this was more enlightening when it was first written in the 80s, but I’m not entirely sure complaining about consultant-speak is worth an entire book. There were a few good insights—I didn’t know the relationship of some of the in vogue terms to science. He’s probably correct that some folks use terms like development and plan to hide unpopular ideas behind, so this class of words is probably worth some study. But I’m not sure this was that study. Poerksen’s objections toggled back and forth between aesthetic (he didn’t like the ahistoric “taste” of these words) and just griping about, as far as I could tell, anything abstract. That doesn’t really move any conversation forward. I’m also not convinced this process is new rather than the latest iteration. (Why wouldn’t some terms like “holy” or “honorable” fill the gap in other societies.) Poerksen’s best evidence is to the idea that academics and scientists used to speak in a Latin that was generally inaccessible, but trying to keep languages of power arcane doesn’t seem better than allowing them to be watered down into “tasteless” words.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews