From time to time in Ezra’s Essays, I have commented upon changes in the English language that have impressed me. There are a good many that do not impress me. Today’s essay largely has to do with those that don’t impress me. There are four words that I might cite as reasons for writing this small essay. The first one is called “ramp.” It is generally used in association with the word up. Rather than saying that I am going to increase the quality or the speed or whatever, the speaker will say, “I am going to ramp up…” Listening to radio and television commentary for a good amount of time, I have never heard anyone saying, “I am going to ramp down…” It is always a case of ramping up. To my ears, this is a useless addition to the noble English language.
The second term which is used with alarming frequency is little better than ramping up or ramping down. I am not so sure that this term ought to continue to be used. The word is “transparency.” If you will listen to news reports on radio and television, they will assure you that transparency makes many appearances. It is now the predominate descriptive term in commentary. To my mind, the word that ought to be used is “honesty.” When “transparency” is used, I think of nothing other than the words to “Cellophane,” a lovely song from the musical production of “Chicago.” It goes:
“Cellophane should have been my name.
You can walk right by me, see right through me,
And never know I’m there.”
So when the commentators speak of “transparency” I think of “Cellophane.” In my mind it is a matter of pure honesty. If you are going to be honest, you don’t need to use euphemisms like “transparency.” But that is the way of the world these days.
Another word that I have in mind is “toxic.” “Toxic” mortgages came in to being in association with the recent stock market crash. Since that time, the word “toxic” seems to have spread to other usages such as “toxic” loans and toxic baseball pitchers who can’t throw the ball over the plate. One New York sportscaster says that Oliver Perez, the $36M Mets pitcher, finds the strike zone “toxic” to him, so he issues walks in great quantities. There are various words to which the word toxic can be attached. I have no objection to the use of the word toxic. It is descriptive and short and meaningful.
And finally we come to the word that has bothered me for at least 25 years, the word being “pro-active.” This word was a favorite of one of my non-favorite people who worked for the telephone company in a job as one of my colleagues. From time to time, this person, who was the child of preachers from Iowa, would find excuses to use the word “pro-active” as applied to AT&T. I suppose the real word should be active. What does the word “pro” add to “active?” I realize that I am verbally prejudiced about the use of the word “pro-active” because of my considerable dislike of this child of Iowa preachers. But that is a burden that I will carry to my grave.
Well, they are the four cases that I wanted to cite to you today. They are the words “ramp,” “transparency,” “toxic,” and, finally, the greatly disliked word “pro-active.”
I am quite certain that my efforts to purify the English language will amount to nothing and so I am going to make a transparent attempt to end this essay. When I have something to say that is less toxic, I will write another essay to explain all of this.
E. E. CARR
May 27, 2010
Essay 457
~~
Kevin’s commentary: I actually find myself disagreeing with the quip about transparency here. I think that when it comes to policy-making, making honest policies is one thing but making readily visible honest policies is quite another. I think the idea of transparency is that it’s useful because policies are not always honest, but with increased transparency comes increased public insight into what’s going on, which in turn nominally increases the public’s ability to weigh in. If you’re making honest policies in an opaque box that’s good, and if you’re making bad policies in a transparent box that’s fine because we can stop them, but if you’re making bad policies in an opaque box then there’s a problem.