Googling One's Self

In a moment of boredom and curiosity I decdied to Google Myself and stumbled across this old article I had written for ComFusion magazine (RIP). Something about it still seems salient today... now that Comfusion is no more, I thought I'd repost it here...

The Definite Article

It’s been ages since I sat down and really poured my thoughts out onto paper, or the digital equivalent thereof. I ran across something today that sparked a train of thought -- or, if you will, this rant.

My company, which will remain unnamed, is involved in the “news clipping” business. We sell select news clips to PR companies/ departments/ agencies and other advertising-oriented institutions. We have a database of closed-captioned text from newscasts, both local and nationally syndicated, from better than 80 markets around the country covering all the major networks in those markets. Our database is searchable by keyword, like Google. For kicks, I did a search today on the word “Iraq” and came up with 1,657 hits within our notes since midnight. I then decided to run the word “war,” which came up 1,796 times. To set a baseline, I chose a simple word, “the,” and that word came up 2,365 times.

Now you don't have to understand the Boolean logic behind the search engine or how it handles multiples and so forth and so on. What you have to recognize is that the words “war” and “Iraq” are as almost as likely to be used as the word “the” and are thus equally as invaluable. Where would we be without, excuse the pun, definitives?

As this very basic statistical analysis shows, the words “war” and “Iraq” are used nearly as frequently as the definite article -- for every four "the"s, we find three "war"s. For every definitive, or mention of something in “the” real world, our real world has become synonymous with the notion of war, of Iraq, a place very few of us have ever visited, and only see now ablaze.

So why is it so important that we understand the preponderance of the word “war” in our vernacular? Let’s contemplate for a moment the manner in which we realize the world around us. We see it, but when we interpret that world and attempt to describe it, we use language. Language is our way of recreating our local reality and disseminating it to others. Given that there's a finite amount of words, a finite amount of meanings, a finite amount of possible sentences -- ways of stating the beauties, horrors, joys and frustrations of this world, and our mortal coils -- I find it somewhat terrifying that a great part of our daily life is predicated on war in a place called Iraq. Despite both distance and time from the actual conflict, the word “war” and the reality of it enters into the language of local realities worldwide, creating a meta-reality that defines the event as a definite mainstay of our local reality and our language.

As responsible adults, we choose not to teach our children foul language. We scoff when an adult forgets his or her tongue and blurts out “shit” or “fuck” or “goddamn.” “Don't curse around the baby!” is a standard and acceptable response when protecting a child’s innocent ears. This practice is a common way to socialize our children and hope that they pick up the tools with which to accurately and civilly communicate their local realities. We know that many of the problems in this life stem from difficulties in communication. It can be said that our president suffers from a difficulty in communicating through the channels established to ensure a stable and civil world order. However, what happens when the definite articles before us, and surrounding us, and internalized by our children, constantly point towards the words “war” and “Iraq”?

War and the implements of war are not the only technological innovations being featured on the battlefield today. Information, intelligence, and visual and audio media are more potent than ever before. It’s possible, at any moment and through any medium, to join into the chatterbox of war footage, dialogue, live news, images, and stories, either by going online, turning on the television, tuning in the radio, or reading the newspaper. It’s even possible to set up a service on your WAP phone or PDA to receive up-to-the-minute updates on how the war is progressing in Iraq.

If we wish to consider the importance of language and how it shapes our reality, we have only to turn to the Old Testament and read the first few lines of Genesis: “And God said let there be light and there was light.” In a metaphysical sense, to speak is to invoke something; we all join in a God-like act of creation through our speech. That which is spoken and invoked takes root like a seed in the mind. It’s scary to think that creation casts such a shadow. This is a form of socialization and enculturation -- the vestiges of war constitute our daily bread that the new generation is being force-fed. The circus side-show of media coverage and verbiage that is spilling out from our “media-access-boxes-du-jour” (TV, radio, web, print) bears with it a frightening trend that will incorporate the word “war” like a self-fulfilling prophecy into, I dare say, our future.

Let’s turn back to the Good Book for a moment ...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
-- John 1:1

Let’s play a game of substitution, replacing “Word” with “War”:

In the beginning was the War, and the War was with God, and the War was God.

This time, let’s replace “God” with “War”:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with War, and the Word was War.

If we bear God in our words and our hearts -- be it the God of the Old Testament, that fiery angel, or the more forgiving God of the New Testament, or Allah, or Adonai, or Jehovah, or Yahweh, or the many unnamed and unspoken faces of divine transcendence that pepper the annals of human knowledge -- whatever the face or the name, the Word is sacred and held as such in the heart. Language has a certain sanctity, as the vehicle through which we attempt to explain the ineffable by way of metaphors and similes. Our abstract notions of divinity are compartmentalized by a finite language. Our new tongue is filled with war; it is filled with both image and metaphor for war, leaving little space for the sacred or divine.

The words are not a single manifestation. The word “war” is a three-letter word dating back to the 12th Century, of Middle English origin with an etymological root in the north Franco-Germanic werre(1). The word, in essence, is benign as a word. However, the word is not alone: it’s a multidimensional representation complete with image and sound. These images are hand picked vis-à-vis the news media and the instructions given to them by the government. The instructions are simple: Don’t show anything that would hurt morale here at home. Show the war like an action movie-the more green night vision pictures the better. Make the sensationalism as sterile as possible so that “war” is sterile and the grim realities are kept a distant thought until it’s time to build a memorial or celebrate a new holiday. Show the war in good taste.

I was chatting recently with my friend in Spain. He said to me, “You’re missing out!”, referring to what he saw on the news in Madrid. Al Jazeera is broadcast in Europe uncensored and unedited. It’s amazing to think that the land of Free Speech, founded on the freedom to express differences of opinion, is exercising good taste by carefully censoring the minority voice, the unpopular sentiment. Perhaps the only amazing thing about this realization is that it’s nothing new. Free speech is a relative term here.(2)

If you say it, it may come; if you utter it, it may happen; if you fill your language with it, it will fill your reality with itself. Perhaps this more agnostic stance on the abstract notion of words better explains the importance of choosing your words carefully. As we use our many subtongues to speak the languages of international politics, religion, law, philosophy, love, hate, and so many emotions, let’s not forget that everything boils down to a simple fact: we create our world one brick at a time, one word at a time, and so too can it be just as easily undone through careless words.

**FOOTNOTES**

1.) Merriam Webster Dictionary Online:

Main Entry: war
Pronunciation: 'wor
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Old North French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra, strife; akin to Old High German werran, to confuse
Date: 12th century
1 a(1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) b : the art or science of warfare c : (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end: a class war, a war against disease c : see Variance, Odds

2.) From the files of Dave Ross, KCBS Radio Transcript -- March 24, 2003 HOW MUCH TRUTH?
“Central Command sent the correspondents here a frosty e-mail asking that this footage not be aired, and the networks themselves have sent out memos: do not show anything in poor taste.
Interesting concept, covering a war in good taste ...
It's certainly not a consideration for the Iraqi military leadership who were like kids at Christmas:
IRAQI INFORMATION MINISTER Muhammad Saeed al Sharif: ‘They are suffering from shock ... and awe.’
In the end, CNN showed one still photo of a dead marine. No face, no wounds visible, just a corpse in a uniform.
Very tasteful.”