ELAYNE RIGGS: On the same page
Just as with the Twilight Zone, I have a favorite Star Trek: Next Generation episode that’s stuck with me for years. It’s called "Darmok," wherein Picard & co. attempt to communicate with the Tamarians, a people with an incomprehensible language. Blogger Barbara O’Brien picks up the plot synopsis: "Captain Picard and Dathon the Tamarian have an adventure together battling an invisible beast, and during this adventure Picard has a ‘Helen Keller at the water pump’ moment and realizes that Tamarians speak in metaphors taken from stories. For example, ‘Darmok and Jalad at Tenagra’ refers to two enemies, Darmok and Jalad, who became allies at Tenagra. As a phrase, it means ‘Let’s put aside our differences and be friends.’ So after much suspense and drama and the death of the unfortunate Dathon, by the end of the episode Picard knows enough Tamarian to say, ‘Bye. It’s been real.’"
One of the reasons this show resonates with me so much is that I’m keen on the necessity of communicating, whether through stories or essays or conversation. I wouldn’t have majored in English and linguistics at college if this idea weren’t one of the driving forces in my life. I’ve always believed that there has to be a way of making myself understood to anyone — probably as futile a notion as my childhood ambition of wanting every single person I met in my life to like me, to never make any enemies. But you know, I haven’t necessarily given up on that one either! And as I’ve noted a number of times, much of my life has been spent in trying to find the key, the conversational Rosetta Stone, that would result in my late father finally being able to understand me — a quest at which I never succeeded, but which led me to become a writer.
Communication is the implicit goal of storytelling. If you’re not making some connection with your readers or viewers or listeners, you may as well be writing in a secret diary. Now, I’ve mentioned before that I have a small tolerance for things like Easter eggs and other pop culture references stuck into TV shows, comics, etc. as a wink between writer and audience; you’ll notice those stories are often the first to become dated as well because their references are so time-specific. But that’s a far cry from deliberately not communicating at all, but faking it in a way that makes your audience feel as though they’re stupid if they admit they’re not in the know.
Fortunately this deliberate communication breakdown doesn’t happen with most stories I read, as I tend to choose my entertainment rather than having it (and any accompanying trendiness) choose me. But it does happen in real life, particularly so in this century so far. I don’t think I have to tell you what series of events brought this on.
Barbara’s Darmok post linked to above was followed up by her talking a bit more about the myth-based Bush presidency. To me, what Darmok symbolizes in our current political discourse more than anything else is the public’s willingness to accept superficial catchphrases and buzzwords and references without asking that they be defined. A government cannot connect with its citizens unless both ends of the conversation are using the same reference points. This is why I repeatedly stress the pressing need to make politicians on all ends of the spectrum define their terms.
Every time a member of the press hears a vague word phrase like "terror" or "freedom" or a mush-mouthed phrase like "family values" they need to ask the speaker, "What do you mean by that?" What does "freedom" mean to George Bush? Something completely different, I’ll warrant, than what it might mean to a New Orleanian two years after the deluge, or a New Yorker staring at a huge scarred hole in the ground for the last six years. What does "government" mean to the people currently governing? Biding one’s time until re-election (as seems to be the case with too many Democrats elected last year with a clear mandate to get the US out of Iraq and bring an end to corrupt cronyism)? Enriching one’s friends (as seems to be the definition used by most neoconservatives eager to "drown government in a bathtub" and then, after breaking it utterly, point and say "See, we told you government doesn’t work!")? Or working in concert with others to carry out the will of the people whom you represent and serve? Every time we hear these sound bytes deliberately undefined and unquestioned by a too-complacent media, we need to be the ones to loudly demand, "What do you mean by that?"
Jargon is the enemy of understanding. One of the reasons I get so frustrated with many feminist websites and no longer read much feminist literature is its unnecessary overuse of academic-based jargon. It not only bores me silly, but it doesn’t serve any purpose other than making the writer sound self-important and the reader feel like an idiot. That’s not communication, that’s dismissal. Jargon lets people get away with saying whatever they want to because it sounds good or important or inspiring, and best of all (to them) they can’t be held accountable for their words because the words themselves have no intrinsic meaning. Meaning is implicit. Meaning is Darmok. We’re all supposed to know and accept the same mythical definitions, which never actually get defined any more, they just become absorbed into the lexicon while we anticipate the next "where’s the beef?" moment.
LOLcats and Easter eggs are fine for entertainment but, when it comes to talking about the things that actually affect our lives and the world around us, we deserve nothing less than full disclosure. Ask your representatives to define their terms, even (especially) the ones they feel should go without saying. And keep asking, until we’re all on the same page.
Elayne Riggs is ComicMix‘s news editor and apologizes for being so overtly political this week but, considering that what happened six years ago yesterday still affects her greatly, she begs your indulgence. She wishes her Muslim readers a joyous Ramadan and her Jewish readers L’Shana Tova.
To use the Star Trek: The Next Generation reference, I have a few favorite episodes. "Chain Of Command," a two-parter in which Picard is captured and tortured by a ruthless Cardassian (played by David Warner), stands out in my mind as one which also has some bearing on your column's subject. There is a stalwart, unflinching dedication to the truth in this episode. i will not touch on the many facets of character and roles they play and the roles they choose to serve. I will limit my point to the focus of the torture scenes. ********SPOILERS (In case anyone reading this has NOT seen this episode)*************************************************… The Cardassian, if you recall, continued to torture Picard beneath four, intensely bright spotlights. He kept trying to force the captain to state that there are three lights, when Picard knew very well that there are four of them. That is what has happened in this country. The nation and it's people, having been beaten down by grief and shock, have been broken down into stating that there are three lights. Descent is met with continued treatment (or actual torture in some cases…such as the men and women who were the subject of John Ostrander's column a few weeks ago), and the disgruntled voices are silenced or they comply and say there are three lights. But, I still hold a small fragment of hope for us, thinking that enough people become like Picard. He stood there, body nearly broken, covered in filthy rags, nervous system pushed beyond its limits for pain and anguish, and chose the right path by defiantly stating "THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!"
Steve, it seems to me that episode has less to do with communication — because of course the torturers knew there were four lights, they just wanted to break Picard until he denied the truth — than with, say, the philosophies of Alberto Gonzalez.
Since when is a constant response of "I don't recall/remember" considered communication? :)Perhaps you are right. I may have made a connection between the Cardassian's blatant attempts to make Picard deny the truth of "Four Lights" and your points about jargon and miscommunication of the current political atmosphere (not that the current administration is much more subtle than Warner's character…HE was at least straightforward in his methods).I apologize or any confusion on my part.
Who needs vague word phrases? Have you see the commercials that say "They attacked us, we have to stay"? That's not true, of course. Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. The commercials are still allowed to say it. There was something about it in the WashPost today (they describe one I haven't seen):http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…(Yikes, Putin has dissolved the Russian government. Wanna bet he plans to be actual dictator?)
It looks like the auto URLs aren't working. Here's the html version:WashPost article mentioning inaccurate pro-war commericals.
Well, outright lies and tortuous logic are, of course, as much a part of propaganda as undefined phrases and mealy-mouthed sound bytes, but hey, one thing at a time…
The hardcore Trekkie in me won't let this go… sorry… The Cardassian in "Chain of Command" tells Picard there are five lights, not three.Hi Elayne! Been reading your columns for weeks now and I've been thoroughly enjoying them. "Darmok" is a very profound episode, one of my faves too, and my appreciation for it has deepened now. One thing you didn't mention is how many times Bush in particular mangles the language, either misstating common words/phrases or confusing one thing for another. Did you see the latest – how he accidentally called Australians "Austrians"? Oy!This is a really cool site. Glad you're here on it.
Glad you like the site, Rich — from what I hear it's about to get a whole lot better! To give Mush-Mouth the benefit of the doubt, it sounded to me like he slurred "Australians" so it came out sounding like "Austrians," but he did call APEC "OPEC," which gaffe once again reveals (as if it needed to) where his personal priorities lie.
To be fair, Rich, it was MY quote or misquote. I haven't seen an episode of ST:TNG in quite some time and was trying to quote from memory.
Quite alright. Still a great 2-part episode nonetheless.