Topic: Language and individuality.
Well the first thing is that it is the actual making of language; the actual “in the present” moment sound that a person is making and how they’re making that sound. That’s where identity lives, I think.
Like if you took what I’m saying here, and you transcribed it, I don’t think that’s Anna Deveare Smith. But I think that a series of sounds and movements are Anna Deveare Smith. In other words, the outward product of that.
And you know your language is close to your breeding. It’s close to your heart. And usually, what I like to listen for is the time when somebody says something in an unusual way. And usually I talk to people for about an hour, and for example if they’re constantly using upward inflections – you know, always speaking up, everything that say goes up, which younger people tend to do. As I heard a very accomplished judge say, when asked what advice she could give to young women lawyers who are trying to make it, it’s don’t do that. Because what does it say to the judge if you come forward and say, “Your honor, my client is not guilty.” It sounds like a question, right? So if someone is talking all like that, what I’m going to listen for is the time that they don’t do that. And that’s what I would start to study as a way of characterizing them.
Whereas I think a professional mimic or an impressionist would pick the thing they do the most, because that’s what an audience could then identify as that person. So an impressionist doing George Bush is going to try to find the gestures and the, you know, the intimations that he keeps using over and over again. But if I were to study him – and I haven’t really – I’d look for when he did something that wasn’t what we’ve seen.
Anna Deavere Smith: Oh, that’s a really wonderful question. Well I would say President [Bill] Clinton, for example. I went to Washington and I interviewed 520 people or more. And I was surprised that I would say of those people, Clinton was probably among the five who had the most musicality in their language.
In other words, in Washington, I would say you begin to find less and less expression than you find in other places because people are very careful about what they say. They’re going to be judged for what they say. They could say the wrong thing or say it the wrong way and never live it down. So they have, as someone said very eloquently what Thomas Jefferson had, which is that Thomas Jefferson could never been found in verbal undress. That kind of verbal dressing makes it harder to find music in the language.
I’m trying to find the time that people start to sing. I call it “singing”. Not actually, you know, “la-la-la-la-la,” but they really start to open up rhythmically. More than, again, what’s the text, it’s more about this singing as I call it.
And I was surprised to the extent to which [Bill] Clinton sang. And the other thing about Clinton that I enjoyed was that he brought truth to something that a linguist had actually told me many years ago when I told her what I was trying to do – that is to say, a form of getting people to sing – she had said to me, “Well I’m gonna give you three questions that can ensure that that will happen in the course of an hour if you only have an hour to talk to people. And the three questions were:
“Have you ever come close to death? Do you know the circumstances of your birth? And have you ever been accused of something that you didn’t do?”
Now when I first started my whole process, which I call “On the Road: A Search for American Character” – all of my plays are a part of that series – I originally just sat with people who I met on the streets of New York and talked to them about whatever. If they sold milk, I talked about selling milk. Or stick ball in the street in one case, or being a life guard at the Y [i.e. YMCA]. I sort of talked to them about what they did, and then somewhere in the interview I’d ask those three questions. And lo and behold, every time I did, people would start this singing that I’m talking about.
So when I finally got an interview with President Clinton, which wasn’t easy, and was told that I would have 10 minutes alone with him in the Oval Office, I knew that I had to have a question that would cause him to use the entire 10 minutes without me having to say anything. And the question I picked was a version of one of those three questions. And it was, “Mr. President, do you think you’re being treated like a common criminal?” which is a version of, “Have you ever been accused of something that you didn’t do?”
He spoke for 35 minutes. And as people, come into the office, “Mr. President, you need to rest your voice now . . .Okay, bye!”
So I was really happy to see that something that I learned, 27 or 30 years before I met him actually was in good stead. I had researchers. I had everything in the world to try to find the question I should ask President Clinton.
Recorded on: Aug 22, 2007
Discuss
Proinsias O'Fachtna on January 7, 2008, 2:55 PM
For years, in lectures to journalism students, I mentioned how the Internet might have changed U.S. involvement in Vietnam. I remembered the teach-ins during the early years, and all those Indochina books written in French and ignored in America.
Then came the popular Internet, easy worldwide communications, and the Iraq War. A great disappointment to me while observing European and American coverage from Ireland.
Proinsias O'Fachtna on January 7, 2008, 7:55 PM
For years, in lectures to journalism students, I mentioned how the Internet might have changed U.S. involvement in Vietnam. I remembered the teach-ins during the early years, and all those Indochina books written in French and ignored in America.
Then came the popular Internet, easy worldwide communications, and the Iraq War. A great disappointment to me while observing European and American coverage from Ireland.
Eric Djebe on January 17, 2008, 2:51 AM
Very good! I am taking singing lessons very irregularily. What you notice, of course, is that the quality of your voice is much more dependent on the state you are in (deep feelings vs shallow functioning) then on the amount of practice you did since last time.
Eric Djebe on January 17, 2008, 7:51 AM
Very good! I am taking singing lessons very irregularily. What you notice, of course, is that the quality of your voice is much more dependent on the state you are in (deep feelings vs shallow functioning) then on the amount of practice you did since last time.
Gina Hill on January 20, 2008, 12:40 PM
I disagree that identity is found in the "sound" expression of language usage. Written language is equally an expression of what I am thinking, feeling, choosing to express to others at any given time. . . .
My external identity shifts depending on the language I am using — not only what is externally apparent (she is speaking X language), but also the range of concepts and cultural understandings that are available in one language and not in another contribute to limiting or expanding my identity.
Gina Hill on January 20, 2008, 5:40 PM
I disagree that identity is found in the “sound” expression of language usage. Written language is equally an expression of what I am thinking, feeling, choosing to express to others at any given time. . . .
My external identity shifts depending on the language I am using — not only what is externally apparent (she is speaking X language), but also the range of concepts and cultural understandings that are available in one language and not in another contribute to limiting or expanding my identity.
Nick Montgomery on January 20, 2008, 6:25 PM
I think you're right that written language can be an expression of identity, Ginger Cat, but I also think it's important to note the uniqueness of speech in this context. I think it's really interesting that you point out how our identity is unstable, and that it shifts according to language and other contextual factors. As you point out, our identities can shift based on markers that are apparent in writing, but there are markers in speech that can't be captured by writing, like inflection.
Nick Montgomery on January 20, 2008, 11:25 PM
I think you’re right that written language can be an expression of identity, Ginger Cat, but I also think it’s important to note the uniqueness of speech in this context. I think it’s really interesting that you point out how our identity is unstable, and that it shifts according to language and other contextual factors. As you point out, our identities can shift based on markers that are apparent in writing, but there are markers in speech that can’t be captured by writing, like inflection.
Elisa Tejada on January 21, 2008, 5:22 PM
I believe this argument is effective in getting the point across: the media could have done a better job at informing the readers. However, there are certain things the public don%u2019t want to hear, especially if it means they%u2019re wrong. Another thing is that it isn%u2019t entirely the media%u2019s fault there is war in Iraq, it was the people who chose to believe and are now looking for a scapegoat.
Yes, the media has some responsibility in the war. They were responsible for informing the public of what was going on, instead they downplayed demonstrations against the war and few news organizations came out and said that it was wrong.
As Paul Krugman said, what happened was that after 9-11 people rallied behind the government. The media was pressured to not publicize what was really up because organizations questioned what they did. It%u2019s not the first time in the history of man that the public backs up their government after an emergency, Argentineans rallied around La Junta. Not only was it the people that closed themselves, but Krugman also mentions the White House closing access to media.
Krugman recommends not trusting the press, at least not yet. I can see why, they have given us reason not to. He does say to read critically as there has been a %u201Ccomedown since the case of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers.%u201D
Elisa Tejada on January 21, 2008, 10:22 PM
I believe this argument is effective in getting the point across: the media could have done a better job at informing the readers. However, there are certain things the public don%u2019t want to hear, especially if it means they%u2019re wrong. Another thing is that it isn%u2019t entirely the media%u2019s fault there is war in Iraq, it was the people who chose to believe and are now looking for a scapegoat.
Yes, the media has some responsibility in the war. They were responsible for informing the public of what was going on, instead they downplayed demonstrations against the war and few news organizations came out and said that it was wrong.
As Paul Krugman said, what happened was that after 9-11 people rallied behind the government. The media was pressured to not publicize what was really up because organizations questioned what they did. It%u2019s not the first time in the history of man that the public backs up their government after an emergency, Argentineans rallied around La Junta. Not only was it the people that closed themselves, but Krugman also mentions the White House closing access to media.
Krugman recommends not trusting the press, at least not yet. I can see why, they have given us reason not to. He does say to read critically as there has been a %u201Ccomedown since the case of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers.%u201D
Belinda Sandy on January 22, 2008, 2:55 PM
Found Richard Bransen's comments shed light on what I and many others from the general public suspected was happening in the lead up to Iraq war. But I was most annoyed with our politicians in Australia and those in England who just regurgitated the emotive messages coming from Bush administration. We are not idiots, we need DETAILED INFORMATION if we are to back up our politicians on such an important decision they have made on our behalf. I looked on in disbelief and wondered who our own Australian politicians were listening to, or more to the point NOT listening to say so little at the time.
My questions then and now are, how can I personally make a difference in making a change for the better,and how can we ensure our politicians make more informed decisions>
Belinda Sandy on January 22, 2008, 2:59 PM
Sorry I meant Paul Krugman not Richard Bransen!
Belinda Sandy on January 22, 2008, 7:55 PM
Found Richard Bransen’s comments shed light on what I and many others from the general public suspected was happening in the lead up to Iraq war. But I was most annoyed with our politicians in Australia and those in England who just regurgitated the emotive messages coming from Bush administration. We are not idiots, we need DETAILED INFORMATION if we are to back up our politicians on such an important decision they have made on our behalf. I looked on in disbelief and wondered who our own Australian politicians were listening to, or more to the point NOT listening to say so little at the time.
My questions then and now are, how can I personally make a difference in making a change for the better,and how can we ensure our politicians make more informed decisions>
Belinda Sandy on January 22, 2008, 7:59 PM
Sorry I meant Paul Krugman not Richard Bransen!
Tony O'Brien on January 23, 2008, 8:09 PM
These are not theoretical questions regarding the past. The Drums of war are now beating against Iran.
The Bush Administration irrevocably ties nuclear power generation with the ability to generate nuclear weapons. I understood that the degree of enrichment is much different, requiring very different levels of technical ability. The IAEA claims to be able to tell the difference.
The press seems willing to ignore the role of the IAEA.
Tony O'Brien on January 23, 2008, 8:16 PM
These questions are not just the past. The drums of war are now beating against Iran.
The Bush Administration has tied the generation of nuclear power with the development of nuclear weapons. However the degree of enrichment required and thus the technical ability are very different.
The IAEA can tell the difference between enrichment for different purposes. If Iran subjects itself to IAEA scrutiny then there is no case for war.
Despite this the press simply reports the Bush Administration line.
Tony O'Brien on January 24, 2008, 1:09 AM
These are not theoretical questions regarding the past. The Drums of war are now beating against Iran.
The Bush Administration irrevocably ties nuclear power generation with the ability to generate nuclear weapons. I understood that the degree of enrichment is much different, requiring very different levels of technical ability. The IAEA claims to be able to tell the difference.
The press seems willing to ignore the role of the IAEA.
Tony O'Brien on January 24, 2008, 1:16 AM
These questions are not just the past. The drums of war are now beating against Iran.
The Bush Administration has tied the generation of nuclear power with the development of nuclear weapons. However the degree of enrichment required and thus the technical ability are very different.
The IAEA can tell the difference between enrichment for different purposes. If Iran subjects itself to IAEA scrutiny then there is no case for war.
Despite this the press simply reports the Bush Administration line.
Jackie Trueman on January 27, 2008, 7:22 AM
I think that writing is objective, in that ideas, thoughts, feelings are objects without the "colour" of the visual of facial expression and body language. They are without the physical of the audio. Verbal and physical language, on the other hand, rely on the moment and memory, whereas, written language, one can go over it again and again. I think, that, frequently, in spite of verbal and physical language, people try to conceal their truth, but in the case of written language seem to be more honest. One of the strangest things that I have noticed is that, even in the same country, same background and same neighborhood, one's family "language" can be different than their neighbors.
MANUEL VICENTE on January 27, 2008, 7:43 AM
I was deeply impressed at discovering the
unfinishedwork of Lev Vygotski and the power of his core thesis: language is mind is language. This is truly an empowering concept.Jackie Trueman on January 27, 2008, 12:22 PM
I think that writing is objective, in that ideas, thoughts, feelings are objects without the “colour” of the visual of facial expression and body language. They are without the physical of the audio. Verbal and physical language, on the other hand, rely on the moment and memory, whereas, written language, one can go over it again and again. I think, that, frequently, in spite of verbal and physical language, people try to conceal their truth, but in the case of written language seem to be more honest. One of the strangest things that I have noticed is that, even in the same country, same background and same neighborhood, one’s family “language” can be different than their neighbors.
MANUEL VICENTE on January 27, 2008, 12:43 PM
I was deeply impressed at discovering the
unfinishedwork of Lev Vygotski and the power of his core thesis: language is mind is language. This is truly an empowering concept.Zachary Wolk on February 2, 2008, 2:20 AM
No. The media is not an entity, the people that are responsible for the war in Iraq are Irving Kristol, George Bush, C.L.Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Colin Powell, Karl Rove and Tony Blair.
Zachary Wolk on February 2, 2008, 7:20 AM
No. The media is not an entity, the people that are responsible for the war in Iraq are Irving Kristol, George Bush, C.L.Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Colin Powell, Karl Rove and Tony Blair.
James Nordhoff on February 4, 2008, 6:01 AM
No, BUT….. Yes Bush and Cheney and his, then, cabinet lied to everyone, including the MEDIA, to drum up support for an unjust attack against IRAQ. What's done is done and must be seen to whatever conclusion the next administration and the UN and the Iraqi government decide upon. Yes the media has a responsibility to dig deeper to uncover deception by any political candidate or elected official. They certainly dropped the ball with Iraq, but the country was still smarting from 911 at the time. I'm still not entirely convinced Cheney or some of his business associates didn't help to orchestrate 911, which would certainly explain why the course-change from Afganistan and Osama Bin Laden, to the distraction of Iraq. Please do not tell me an American could not possibly be that evil. How about the Enron CEO who bilked employees out of their life savings to get even richer. Would killing them have been any more cruel???
Of course, any eveidence has been erased and it is after all, a conspiracy theory, at best. But my point is, the current administration has never had America's best interests in mind when doing anything. They serve themselves and their wealthy well-connected friends and business associates. How many of our honorable American soldiers have fought and died in a war our leaders knew was unjustified?
Don't tell me that isn't evil and heartless of Dick & George. Surrounding themselves with YES Men & Women, who only agree to go
along with any twisted plan they come up with. Why else would so many cabinet members have jumped ship in the middle?? They couldn't sleep at night!!!
But I digress, again.
The media did look the other way, so to speak, but we can forgive them, to a point. Even now, I do not trust the nightly news on any network, especially FoxNews. So slanted, it should be called RushNews!! But that's what we get for having Free Speech.
We all have to do our best to dig for the real facts ourselves. Digg.com is a website that reports on news you may not see on other more mainstream sources.
There are many others, but I usually look at a lot of sources to get an average of what news and opinion is out there. Never rely on only one source to make informed decisions upon!!
I would have hoped the media would have given Dr. Ron Paul more attention by now, but alas!!, it is not the case. No surprise, there.
Big Media panders, too. Fox is owned and run by a very wealthy man, who it seems to like tax cuts for the wealthy and unfair help for Big Business and a "screw the poor" attitude
in his political candidates. I love a lot of Fox shows, like the Simpsons and Family Guy and House, but their News Channel is a joke.
And Fox even makes fun of itself for just that quality, but some people watch their News like it is un-biased. Rose colored glasses, I guess.
Americans needs a wake-up call when it comes to thinking for themselves. Stop letting others do it for you!!
Meredith W on February 4, 2008, 10:42 AM
David Remnick is letting major media off easy. The question that really needs to be asked is WHY Knight Ridder got it right and the biggies all got it wrong. And until that question is thoroughly and honestly addressed, major media outlets will never learn from their mistakes.
James Nordhoff on February 4, 2008, 11:01 AM
No, BUT….. Yes Bush and Cheney and his, then, cabinet lied to everyone, including the MEDIA, to drum up support for an unjust attack against IRAQ. What’s done is done and must be seen to whatever conclusion the next administration and the UN and the Iraqi government decide upon. Yes the media has a responsibility to dig deeper to uncover deception by any political candidate or elected official. They certainly dropped the ball with Iraq, but the country was still smarting from 911 at the time. I’m still not entirely convinced Cheney or some of his business associates didn’t help to orchestrate 911, which would certainly explain why the course-change from Afganistan and Osama Bin Laden, to the distraction of Iraq. Please do not tell me an American could not possibly be that evil. How about the Enron CEO who bilked employees out of their life savings to get even richer. Would killing them have been any more cruel???
Of course, any eveidence has been erased and it is after all, a conspiracy theory, at best. But my point is, the current administration has never had America’s best interests in mind when doing anything. They serve themselves and their wealthy well-connected friends and business associates. How many of our honorable American soldiers have fought and died in a war our leaders knew was unjustified?
Don’t tell me that isn’t evil and heartless of Dick & George. Surrounding themselves with YES Men & Women, who only agree to go
along with any twisted plan they come up with. Why else would so many cabinet members have jumped ship in the middle?? They couldn’t sleep at night!!!
But I digress, again.
The media did look the other way, so to speak, but we can forgive them, to a point. Even now, I do not trust the nightly news on any network, especially FoxNews. So slanted, it should be called RushNews!! But that’s what we get for having Free Speech.
We all have to do our best to dig for the real facts ourselves. Digg.com is a website that reports on news you may not see on other more mainstream sources.
There are many others, but I usually look at a lot of sources to get an average of what news and opinion is out there. Never rely on only one source to make informed decisions upon!!
I would have hoped the media would have given Dr. Ron Paul more attention by now, but alas!!, it is not the case. No surprise, there.
Big Media panders, too. Fox is owned and run by a very wealthy man, who it seems to like tax cuts for the wealthy and unfair help for Big Business and a “screw the poor” attitude
in his political candidates. I love a lot of Fox shows, like the Simpsons and Family Guy and House, but their News Channel is a joke.
And Fox even makes fun of itself for just that quality, but some people watch their News like it is un-biased. Rose colored glasses, I guess.
Americans needs a wake-up call when it comes to thinking for themselves. Stop letting others do it for you!!
Meredith W on February 4, 2008, 3:42 PM
David Remnick is letting major media off easy. The question that really needs to be asked is WHY Knight Ridder got it right and the biggies all got it wrong. And until that question is thoroughly and honestly addressed, major media outlets will never learn from their mistakes.
Alexander Scholz on April 1, 2008, 7:05 AM
The connection between identity and language is not a natural one. If one identity is under pressure it gains an emblematic function and is one of various means to preserve identity. But under regular circumstances, if it is not in question, it is taken for granted. The connection matters if the questions "Who am/are I/we?" "Whereto I/we am/are belonging?"
Alexander Scholz on April 1, 2008, 11:05 AM
The connection between identity and language is not a natural one. If one identity is under pressure it gains an emblematic function and is one of various means to preserve identity. But under regular circumstances, if it is not in question, it is taken for granted. The connection matters if the questions “Who am/are I/we?” “Whereto I/we am/are belonging?”
Swedish Chef on July 15, 2008, 6:35 AM
Interesting to see some of the comments a few months ago re: Iran. I like revisiting this page because of how little changes. And how scary that is.
Swedish Chef on July 15, 2008, 10:35 AM
Interesting to see some of the comments a few months ago re: Iran. I like revisiting this page because of how little changes. And how scary that is.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register