HOW SMART LANGUAGE HELPED END SEATTLE’S PARALYZING BIKELASH

ezra_pound

Interesting article!

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/how-smart-language-helped-end-seattles-paralyzing-bikelash

Inquitus

ezra_pound wrote: »

Interesting article!

http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/how-smart-language-helped-end-seattles-paralyzing-bikelash

I think that sort of stuff works better in the US, different culture.

rollingscone

Interesting stuff. Especially the localisation of the message as being about improving the quality of life in area x as opposed to the quality of cycling infrastructure in the city.

We might use language differently but there's a definite seam of progress to be mined in transforming cycling infrastructure to be part of neighbourhood quality of life pstructureprojects. At least in more central areas that weren't constructed as Mammonite shrines to motorised obesity.

ezra_pound

Inquitus wrote: »

I think that sort of stuff works better in the US, different culture.

Perhaps but it certainly seems to be a similar discourse here with the 'war on cars' the 'cyclists intent on causing aggression'etc. Similarly the discourse here surrounding Keenan in DCC as being a crazed cyclist wanting to inflict pain and misery on all motorists reminded me of the treatment of some pro cyclist politician in the piece.

HivemindXX

I agree that we have the same problem. Wasn't it the spokesman for the AA that said that he fully supported cycling facilities so long as they didn't inconvenience motorists in any way? And went on to wonder aloud if cyclist facilities were really about improving things for cyclists or were just done out of spite against motorists.

The next time a cyclist is hit by a car passing too close I'm going to wonder if this was a 'punishment pass' gone wrong and how much blame the AA needs to take for encouraging the attitude that cyclists are the enemy.

Changing 'cyclists' to 'people cycling bikes' is my favourite one and I think I'll try to use it more often. Sometimes when I tell someone I'm a cyclist they immediately think I can be blamed for everything they hate about cyclists, including some things that are complete fantasy. I'll be interested to see if I get the same reaction when I tell them 'I cycle' rather than 'I'm a cyclist'.

eeeee

Inquitus wrote: »

I think that sort of stuff works better in the US, different culture.

It's probably one of the most effective ways of changing a dominant mindset. Semantics are hugely important. Instead of a them and us bringing it back to people not just vehicles 'driver', 'cyclist' and humanizing them makes a high difference in how you think and deal with each other. The biggest problem facing cyclists is a lack of understanding, understanding of how to treat us on the road and what we need from infrastructure. So instead of addressing cyclists as a disembodied group, and as such one easy to set against as it has no common ground with the other - 'drivers', this kind of terminology obliterates the Othering of one or the other, thus negating the ability to set themselves up easily against each other.

Ot could be easily enough achieved by the working of current advertising, print and video etc. and the RSA could work with it too. Would maybe make the situation less needlessly antagonistic at times.

Inquitus

gadetra wrote: »

It's probably one of the most effective ways of changing a dominant mindset. Semantics are hugely important. Instead of a them and us bringing it back to people not just vehicles 'driver', 'cyclist' and humanizing them makes a high difference in how you think and deal with each other. The biggest problem facing cyclists is a lack of understanding, understanding of how to treat us on the road and what we need from infrastructure. So instead of addressing cyclists as a disembodied group, and as such one easy to set against as it has no common ground with the other - 'drivers', this kind of terminology obliterates the Othering of one or the other, thus negating the ability to set themselves up easily against each other.

Ot could be easily enough achieved by the working of current advertising, print and video etc. and the RSA could work with it too. Would maybe make the situation less needlessly antagonistic at times.

I disagree, we in Europe are cynical of all this semantic BS and its one of the main reasons the US Corporate culture doesn't translate to here, and why I don't think this would either.

eeeee

Inquitus wrote: »

I disagree, we in Europe are cynical of all this semantic BS and its one of the main reasons the US Corporate culture doesn't translate to here, and why I don't think this would either.

Semantics are not a feature of US corporate culture though, and language is one of the biggest drives of behaviour. Structuralism has been an almost excessively Eurpoean output, with Jacques Lacan (French philosopher) as it's biggest proponent, which gave rise to post-structurailsm, again a predominately European philosophy of language predominantly (post-structuralism, example, a picture of a door with the word 'door' underneath would appear to have a very happy and easy relationship. A picture of a door with he words 'ladies' or 'gents' underneath requires a whole raft of cultural understanding and social connotation to make sense, but it does.) These theories have been around in Europe since the 50's at least form Lacan, and he was not the first.

What I'm saying is the study and philosophy of the use, form and texture of language is not a recent corporate US import, it has been an important part of philosophy for centuries! And semantics is an intrinsic part of that. It is used Every single day in advertising, It could be used here to help how 'cyclists' are perceived, and could make life better for them (us). Not such a bad Idea at all I think.

ezra_pound

Inquitus wrote: »

I disagree, we in Europe are cynical of all this semantic BS and its one of the main reasons the US Corporate culture doesn't translate to here, and why I don't think this would either.

Europeans invented semiotics.

Just because it is used by bs us business corporate fads doesn't make it irrelevant.

De saussure, Foucault, barthes, baudrillard, Levi Strauss, merleau pointy are just some of the big European contributors.

ezra_pound

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/okay-fine-its-war/Content?oid=9937449

This article is linked to the other and I also found it good.

Inquitus

ezra_pound wrote: »

Europeans invented semiotics.

Just because it is used by bs us business corporate fads doesn't make it irrelevant.

De saussure, Foucault, barthes, baudrillard, Levi Strauss, merleau pointy are just some of the big European contributors.

But this is a BS US Fad, people who cycle versus cyclists, I am not going to alter my language usage based on this sort of nonsense, I am happy being a cyclist when on a bike, and just as happy being a driver when in a car. And you can call a cycle lane whatever you like but it doesn't change its purpose.

ezra_pound

Inquitus wrote: »

But this is a BS US Fad, people who cycle versus cyclists, I am not going to alter my language usage based on this sort of nonsense, I am happy being a cyclist when on a bike, and just as happy being a driver when in a car. And you can call a cycle lane whatever you like but it doesn't change its purpose.

I don't know.

Look at my post towards the end of the following thread in the motoring forum. I got a thanks and a positive enough response. If you substitute my use of people driving and people cycling with cyclists and motorists I can't help but think that I'd have got up some of the motor enthusiasts backs! Of course that's all hypothetical.

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057376710/2/#post94199119

flatface

Inquitus wrote: »

But this is a BS US Fad, people who cycle versus cyclists, I am not going to alter my language usage based on this sort of nonsense, I am happy being a cyclist when on a bike, and just as happy being a driver when in a car. And you can call a cycle lane whatever you like but it doesn't change its purpose.

I couldn't disagree with this more. The way you phrase something has a powerful effect on the listener. This is most obvious to me whilst parenting where I have to choose the exact right words to get food into their faces or shoes on their feet.
Why would it be any different with adults?

Inquitus

flatface wrote: »

I couldn't disagree with this more. The way you phrase something has a powerful effect on the listener. This is most obvious to me whilst parenting where I have to choose the exact right words to get food into their faces or shoes on their feet.
Why would it be any different with adults?

I don't deny it may work but I very much doubt people will embrace it, I certainly won't change my language usage, and without buy in it will simply never happen.

rollingscone

Inquitus wrote: »

I don't deny it may work but I very much doubt people will embrace it, I certainly won't change my language usage, and without buy in it will simply never happen.

I'll guarantee you that you've changed your language usage several times in your adult life so far and will continue to do so.

It's a constantly evolving thing for everyone.

Inquitus

rollingscone wrote: »

I'll guarantee you that you've changed your language usage several times in your adult life so far and will continue to do so.

It's a constantly evolving thing for everyone.

I have called drivers drivers for 40 years, chances of starting to refer to them as people who drive is zero. I don't deny language changes but in this particular case it won't.

flatface

Inquitus wrote: »

I don't deny it may work but I very much doubt people will embrace it, I certainly won't change my language usage, and without buy in it will simply never happen.

Language changes quickly and only needs a little push. the link seems to show this, tis cheap for a interest group to concentrate efforts on wording and next thing you know it could trickle into media. Someone has to write the catchphrases the hacks just regurgitate. Sorry, people who write journalism

tomasrojo

The language you use to frame an issue makes a difference in every culture. It's why you need to see the text that pollsters use when asking questions and the order in which they ask the questions to know whether they haven't "gamed" the process.

[Sir Humphrey demonstrates how public surveys can reach opposite conclusions]

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do they respond to a challenge?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?

Bernard Woolley: Er, I might be.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes or no?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Of course, after all you've said you can't say no to that. On the other hand, the surveys can reach opposite conclusions.

[survey two]

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the danger of war?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Do you think it's wrong to force people to take arms against their will?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

Sir Humphrey Appleby: Would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?

Bernard Woolley: Yes.

[does a double-take]

Sir Humphrey Appleby: There you are, Bernard. The perfectly balanced sample.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086831/quotes

Inquitus

tomasrojo wrote: »

The language you use to frame an issue makes a difference in every culture. It's why you need to see the text that pollsters use when asking questions and the order in which they ask the questions to know whether they haven't "gamed" the process.




http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086831/quotes

Yes but in order to drive a change in attitudes between cyclists and drivers you need to force the change in language through to both groups. Obviously how you frame a question will impact the answer you may get, it's one thing for pollsters to script questions for people to read over a phone, quite another to change the language usage of millions of people. I do not deny the language might help, I am just pointing out that there's no chance of driving through a change of this magnitude into common day usage, those fecking drivers will remain enemies of us cyclists and no hope of anyone refering to the other party as persons who accept American linguistic bullshít, even if it might work.

eeeee

But It's not American linguistic bull****, It's a European concept and it happens all the time, every day language changes. Look at how lgbt people are addressed now, foreign people - a large, massive big part of acceptance, understanding, cooperation and equality is language, I would argue the largest part. It just needs to start.
Of course there's hope, there's no need for a them and us attitude, no need at all. Why make others out of people we have to share space with? It has been proven to work, so it's at least worth a try no?!

tomasrojo

Inquitus wrote: »

I do not deny the language might help, I am just pointing out that there's no chance of driving through a change of this magnitude into common day usage, those fecking drivers will remain enemies of us cyclists and no hope of anyone refering to the other party as persons who accept American linguistic bullshít, even if it might work.

"Persons who accept American linguistic bullshít"
I like what you did there.


Still, it does require a lot of work, but, for example, vested interested have gradually turned "estate tax" into "death tax", purely to get the support of people who aren't really affected by it.

Chye-Ching Huang and Nathaniel Frentz of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities assert that the claim that the estate tax is best characterized as a "death tax" is a myth, and that only the richest 0.14% of estates owe the tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States#The_term_.22death_tax.22

"Mansion tax" will be turned into something else in the UK, if Labour attempt to implement it.

This stuff does work. It just takes a LOT of repetition. The "death tax" subterfuge started in the 1940s, for example.

I remember years ago Kevin Myers railing against the stupidity of referring to someone at the head of a meeting as "the chair" rather than "the chairman". The funny thing was, even at the time he was writing, it had become a perfectly standard usage.

Koobcam

Perhaps it would be helpful if, instead of referring to 'drivers, 'cyclists, 'pedestrians' etc, we simply called them 'people'. I seem to recall an ad campaign aimed at getting people in cars to pay more attention to motorcyclists, by highlighting their vulnerability and drawing attention to the fact that these were people, brothers, Mothers, etc etc. I do think it can help to humanise people on the roads, so that someone, for example might pause before driving past cyclists with barely any room. Maybe we could also have some sort of campaign which draws people's attention to the potentially disastrous consequences of a moment's impatience-eg a motorist knocking down a cyclist and killing them, or maybe someone on a bike breaking a red light and hitting a pregnant woman, something of that sort. Not sure if the Seattle approach would work here, but I wouldn't dismiss the power of language to change people's mindset.

Ole Rodrigo

Remember that lovely phrase ' collateral damage ' , used to sanitize the wholesale killing of innocent civilians during the Gulf War.

.

Unknown Soldier

The change of language is good. I'm finding it difficult to see why anyone would be against it or think it doesn't work.

It surrounds us every day. We are bombarded by it. It's basic psychology/manipulation.

You speak to a child differently than you do to an adult etc. You want a result from your language, and thus choose your words to hopefully reach your end goal.

Below is a good example of manipulation, and it's about cycling to boot

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/newspaper-clippings/

dave2pvd

Inquitus wrote: »

I very much doubt people will embrace it, I certainly won't change my language usage.

I'll bet you've changed your language usage quite a bit over the years. Without even knowing it.

When I was a teenager, I moved from Dublin to Cork for a couple of years. Moved back to Dublin. I had to learn a whole raft of new slang. Language had changed.

I moved to America almost 20 years ago. Every time I come home I am surprised at how language has changed.

You all use the word 'bespoke' like it's punctuation. I blame Clarkson for that one. Before Clarkson (BC ) you'd only occasionally hear it on BBC. And that was only when some tailor on Saville Row was being interviewed.

And what about this one: these days, you use around a dozen baseball idioms without even knowing it. Here's one: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/step+up+to+the+plate. Let me suggest who you should thank for that:

Inquitus wrote: »

I disagree, we in Europe are cynical of all this semantic BS and its one of the main reasons the US Corporate culture doesn't translate to here, and why I don't think this would either.

Your language is evolving all the time and without any conscious effort on your part.