Languishing Language, Frustrated Men

The masculine principle is verb oriented while the feminine principle is noun oriented. Who can argue that we have become lovers of talk over action, and that gossip has overtaken tangible doing as the way we attempt to address societal troubles?

Because by our nature we men are drawn to action, we’ve invented an entire lexicon that, when spoken, we use to placate our urge to act by deluding ourselves into believing that we describe things we’ve done or will do by using “soft verbs”. Soft verbs are words or phrases that describe tangible actions but, by the combinations we choose, or through adopting metaphors, they really mean no action whatsoever.

Consider, as an example, the claims made on resumes. We may see it stated that Mr. Smith “coordinated the restructuring of the regional sales organization in a $500 million territory”. There are two soft verbs used. In this case “restructuring” is not a tangible action, and worse, to have “coordinated” a restructuring places Mr. Smith even once more removed from having actually done anything. In this case “coordinated” is a “double soft verb”.

Like most trends in language, an evolution of the perceived need for the soft verbs can be traced. The industrial revolution changed nearly every aspect of life, including our words, what they mean, and how we use them. But even before that massive technological jump and its coincident and ongoing automation and machine-for-man replacement in labor, problems started to arise with certain words.

Imagine a time when people went to a riverside on foot to collect water. If they carried the water back to their home, they really carried the water. It could have been said they “hauled’ the water. But the moment some apparatus was tossed on the back of a beast of burden, all of a sudden to claim to have carried the water was disingenuous. Honestly, they no longer could claim to have carried or to have hauled the water. The animal did it. The person’s action was then collecting, loading, unloading, and leading the animal. But, the word “haul” became sufficient to describe what the PERSON did, when in fact they’d done no such thing. The dictionary says that “to haul” means, “to pull or draw with force; move by drawing; drag”. But later, after the industrial revolution the meaning expanded. Now “to haul” means, “to do carting or transport, or move freight commercially”. Hauling evolved.

Imagine men during the industrial revolution fighting an internal battle to maintain the notion of tangible “doing” in the same sense as their ancestors, but increasingly relying on engines and machines to impart the bulk of the kinetic energy into the “work” they were doing. Even scientifically the definition of work betrayed these men. In physics Work=Force x Distance. (I like the humor this implies, that no matter how hard you lift or pull, if the object doesn’t move, you haven’t produced work). They were not applying the force any longer. They were controlling the device that applied the force.

Men are driven to do. Men are satisfied by doing. So imagine how frustrating it would be for a man to say that he had driven the truck that was loaded with rocks from the quarry to the construction site. For economy of word, and not unimportantly, for self satisfaction, the expression would become, “I hauled rocks all day”. It somehow met his need of “to do” better than the real description of what he had done. That was the beginning of verb softening.

The transition from self sufficiency to aggregated labor in corporations led to men further distancing themselves from the place where the verbal rubber meets the action on the road. All of a sudden one guy used a machine to break the rocks, another used a machine to load the rocks, still the driver drove the truck and delivered the rocks to the place where the sales people had sold the rocks and the logistics person had scheduled their delivery. Years before, the man would have gone and gotten the rocks and brought them to where he would use them. He would have broken them and carried them and built with them. Now, he can pick and choose from all of the verbs used to describe the process of getting rocks delivered to describe his own work day. People understand that he really doesn’t mean any of it literally, but they do not ponder the inaccuracy of the description.

“I busted rock all day”, “I loaded rock all day”, “and I hauled rock all day”…how do those sound?

Then came the information age, and a near impossible conundrum. How could the language of our father’s work describe what we do? Is it even conceivable to say now that we “went to work”? Sitting in a cube, moving letters and memos from pile to pile, or in the last 15 years, emails from file to file, is what comprises the average American man’s work day. Add to the rote desk tasks the ever-present meetings, and the planning…oh, the planning. That is the corporate manifestation of “we are going to”. The tasks have become so subdivided that not only can they barely be called actions, but also no one need feel responsible for any one minute task. So we “facilitate”, “coordinate”, and “oversee”. We “run things up flag poles” and “re-engineer” things, we caucus and find the “value proposition” before we “interface” with the customer, grabbing some “face time”. We hold “off-sites” and use the word “quality” a lot. The list goes on. We read and write books about the “process” of all these things. We adore CEO’s who fill books and speeches with little more than this meaningless soft talk. And we reward them by marking the stock price a tad higher.

Finally, we’ve developed a childlike redefining of the once simple word “change”. We have defined it down to mean little more than an appeal to emotion in political campaigns, and we’ve defined it up to be the most profound concept to enter the corporate boardroom in years. We have dozens of business books (Who Moved my Cheese) written on the subject of change, and, along with the books, armies of consultants to help us wade through the concept of change; a concept they treat with more reverence than astrophysics. Corporate middle managers walk breathlessly from seminars where they were told that change will happen and they had best embrace and exploit it. Corporations have created C level executive positions to “manage change”, complete with the acronym M.O.C. (management of change).

The result of all this is a vast directionless mass of task oriented workers neither taking satisfaction from their jobs nor creating, individually, anything of value. It is a dependent group that would be lost without a full email box and a blinking phone message light each morning; they’d have no idea what to do. So companies created banal “mission statements” that outline in very basic terms how they strive to make good products, make money, and not harm anyone along the way. Once upon a time that was called intuitive common sense.

But for society at large the effects are even more profound. Listless employees, men and women, expectant but having little or no initiative, take the softened verbs that have evolved from the changing feminized world and apply them to daily life. Men see no need to actually DO anything but live frustrated lives in the lack of action. Men call a bunch of contractors and say they built a home. Women sit on homeowners associations and write nagging rules to keep the things they SEE daily homogeneous. Pursuits arise among men to address the frustration. Men take woodworking classes at the hardware superstore not realizing the yearning to build cabinets is part of their basic nature, which has been suppressed by our society of busyness. Women lose faith in men because men seem utterly unprepared to meet the needs of the family should anything catastrophic happen. Men feel disrespected by women as the women grow less and less comfortable with their diluted roles, yet at the same time, our feminized society overtly rewards men for being soft verb people. We criticize the hayseeds who hunt, fish, and build. But when the towers fell on September 11, 2001, all of a sudden there was a renewed respect for men who DO things. Ten years on we are back to soft verb preference.

Rebuilding is not a soft verb action. And when the lights go out, it will take more than a room full of facilitators to replace the figurative light bulb. It will take a hayseed, and thank goodness there are a few still out there.


7 thoughts on “Languishing Language, Frustrated Men

  1. Im glad you were motivated to write that. I think my post makes some good points, not sure how prone to discussion they are, but good points nonetheless, as does yours.

  2. yeah, you just hope that people have enough to think on. Really that’s all you can do is prompt people to re-evaluate where they are at.

    In the sense of both our posts, I could go on and say that it is a principle of this world as God created it that talk is literally worthless in the currency of the world, and that the world as it is operates on action. Talk is meaningless without action behind it. Even Jesus pushes towards putting His words into practice as opposed to just hearing them. Going to the trouble of finding His words out and not doing anything about it is just as worthless in the end as not knowing His words at all. This is a lesson that is lost on most of Churchianity.

    Like with IAL’s recent post on marriage. It’s foolish to go into any venture without obtaining knowledge and discernment backed by wisdom. Marriage is no exception. But if I’m going to find out what is going on, especially how it is defined in Scripture, and then not act on it then that is equally foolish.

  3. Don’t ignore the 3rd way, which is to make ones self aware of the truth, then twist it to fit the action wanted in the first place.
    This is where language languishing affects Gods very word for people. They are used to the redefinition of terms, its normal, so why not take straightforward things in scripture, either expand them to meaninglessness, or narrow them to laser point, either way the real meaning is lost, usually through some meandering greek word study

  4. Yep anything to twist the words into what they want. A lot of preachers Scripture shop, looking for things they can find to support their point, no matter how senseless it really is in context. Usually the real meaning gets lost when they are forced to confront what they don’t want to acknowledge ( is a great example of that). Greek can be used either way in that regard. I’ve found Scriptures that had the meaning completely muddied up by the translators (for traditional reasons) that made no logical sense where the Greek or Hebrew cleared it up, then I’ve found the opposite too. Really the pattern seems to confuse and obfuscate Scripture, no matter where you go. The rule I’ve found is to take something literally, as long as other Scripture supports it, because no concept exists in isolation. If one gets something out of a particular Scripture, they should be able to find it in multiple places. This goes for interpretation of prophecy as well as doctrine.

  5. Hupo…was who I was thinking of. She and some self described “smart” Christian women exploit the Bible for personal and gender gain. You will rarely if ever find anything generally good, for all, in their efforts.

    Then they fall back on the trap, XYZ word is used over here and it means 123, hence it means 123 here as well, or making obscure grammatical and usage arguments, bringing in temporal cultural issues, whatever it takes.
    Ive a theory. I submit low esteem is a plague among Christian women, this mining of scripture is nothing but a way to combat that. They are literally unhappy in theor skin

  6. If you’ve got the guts for it, print off one of the cards from the link and take it into your next meeting. I had a similar one and changed the name of the company four times and everyone who got a copy all said, “You must have worked for this organisation in the recent past” or words to that effect.
    if you’re in a hip trendy church, you can use it for church meetings too.

    But, to the crux of the post, perhaps churches behaving like this, co-ordinating, restructuring and redefining, are part of the reason why the Church is so ineffective in getting God’s message across to the people who have yet to hear it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s