My husband showed me this TED talk by Sandra Fisher-Martins, about how unnecessarily complex language in medical, financial and legal documents “separates us from the information we need”. The talk is in Portugese with English subtitles, and it’s worth all 15 minutes and 38 seconds.
I’m struck by the phrase “information apartheid”, which suggests that language is being used as a medium of power and separation, rather than illumination and inclusion. If you can control the ways that someone uses language, you can control the limits of their entire world and all the possibilities bound within (and outside of) it.
Fisher-Martins uses the example of people who signed mortgages without fully understanding the terms, but this kind of language lurks everywhere. Have you tried reading a privacy policy lately? How about the fine print of your insurance policy? It makes me wonder – just how much have we consented to and signed away without our even realizing it? And who benefits from this?
There are so many lessons here, and so much that I could say about this. But talk to me first. What strikes you about the idea of “information apartheid” and the deliberate obfuscation of language? How is the relationship between language and power significant, especially in this age of hyperconnectivity? And in the midst of all this, what happens to human autonomy, potential and possibility?
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
“Information apartheid” brings to mind the recent 99%/Occupy movements. Knowledge is the ultimate power, and the wealthiest among us often have advance access to the latest information and ideas, allowing them to realize the benefits of prompt action.
I tend to keep Okham’s Razor in mind when I think about things like this. As I see it, “Attribute not to malice that which can adequately be explained by ignorance.” I don’t think the 1% – in this case, the people prolonging the unnecessary complication of language – are intentionally trying to cause harm so much as they are trying to protect themselves from those less educated/informed than them.
Unfortunately, this tactic has a limited shelf life. It’s only a matter of time before the have-nots – right or wrong – grab their pitchforks and torches. The letter of the law only has power so long as the people feel it’s in their best interest to abide.
A better alternative might be, as Ms. Fisher-Martins points out, to simplify the language and make it easier to understand. It might be hard and time-consuming to raise the literacy rate, but simplifying the language has the effect of doing the same thing, relatively.
And how do we all benefit when even a few more people feel more in control of their lives?
Brian, love this: “Attribute not to malice that which can adequately be explained by ignorance.” I agree that, for the most part, that’s probably what’s going on here, as well, but in some ways that makes the obfuscation of language feel all the more totalitarian and sinister – the obfuscators themselves probably have all kinds of reasons for why they use language the way they do (we’ve always done it this way, it’s uncouth to use common language, etc.), and I bet none of them would consciously and openly say that they’re trying to preserve their position of power. Yet that’s what is happening, all the same.
That was incredibly powerful. I was especially struck by the story and statistics about surgery vouchers. I find it unbelievable that information was not acted on or publicized before Ms. Fisher-Martins’ work.
The power implications of language and information is something that has stuck with me since I spent a week living with the Mapuche, an indigenous group in Southern Chile. My host for that week, a woman named Rosa, told me that the written word was essentially the difference-maker in the Mapuche struggle against Spanish colonizers. The Mapuche language was not written, and so power was individual and limited – a person could only really influence those who could hear him. With the arrival of written Spanish, however, edicts from thousands of miles away could compel actions without any recognition of the immediate, human (and often tragic) consequences.
Those of us who are literate (in the green group) have a responsibility to society to use our words carefully, and understand the powerful impact that they can have.
@ Matt “I find it unbelievable that information was not acted on or publicized before”… Believe it. Portugal is an intensely bureaucratic society, with the “top” (1%?) under the firm belief that they have the monopoly on intelligence, viewing themselves as the ruling class, the elite even. It is often not in this group’s interest to make things comprehensible to all of the country’s citizens. Put it this way: Portugal (authorities) need to show Europe that they are implementing new laws and policies which help the citizens, in order that the country may be eligible for financial assistance and respect from its neighbours. However, it doesn’t always have the intention to deliver these policies to the people, presumably as it would involve sharing wealth and knowledge. It is incredible how many “incentives” and policies are advertised, then seemingly vanish after a short while.
@Matt, @Ana, thank you both for your insightful comments! I love the discussion that’s happening here.
I find the same ‘information apartheid’ often applies in business as well. Businesses call it competitive advantage – but often it ends up stultifying a company’s culture.