A Field Guide to Negative Progress | John Michael Greer

[Tace]

April 22, 2015 (Archdruid Report) -- I've commented before in these posts that writing is always partly a social activity.

What Mortimer Adler used to call the Great Conversation, the dance of ideas down the corridors of the centuries, shapes every word in a writer’s toolkit; you can hardly write a page in English without drawing on a shade of meaning that Geoffrey Chaucer, say, or William Shakespeare, or Jane Austen first put into the language. That said, there’s also a more immediate sense in which any writer who interacts with his or her readers is part of a social activity, and one of the benefits came my way just after last week’s post.

That post began with a discussion of the increasingly surreal quality of America’s collective life these days, and one of my readers -- tip of the archdruidical hat to Anton Mett -- had a fine example to offer. He’d listened to an economic report on the media, and the talking heads were going on and on about the U.S. economy’s current condition of, ahem, “negative growth.” Negative growth? Why yes, that’s the opposite of growth, and it’s apparently quite a common bit of jargon in economics just now.

Of course the English language, as used by the authors named earlier among many others, has no shortage of perfectly clear words for the opposite of growth. “Decline” comes to mind; so does “decrease,” and so does “contraction.” Would it have been so very hard for the talking heads in that program, or their many equivalents in our economic life generally, to draw in a deep breath and actually come right out and say “The U.S. economy has contracted,” or “GDP has decreased,” or even “we’re currently in a state of economic decline”? Come on, economists, you can do it!

But of course they can’t. Economists in general are supposed to provide, shall we say, negative clarity when discussing certain aspects of contemporary American economic life, and talking heads in the media are even more subject to this rule than most of their peers. Among the things about which they’re supposed to be negatively clear, two are particularly relevant here; the first is that economic contraction happens, and the second is that that letting too much of the national wealth end up in too few hands is a very effective way to cause economic contraction. The logic here is uncomfortably straightforward -- an economy that depends on consumer expenditures only prospers if consumers have plenty of money to spend -- but talking about that equation would cast an unwelcome light on the culture of mindless kleptocracy entrenched these days at the upper end of the U.S. socioeconomic ladder. So we get to witness the mass production of negative clarity about one of the main causes of negative growth.

It’s entrancing to think of other uses for this convenient mode of putting things. I can readily see it finding a role in health care -- “I’m sorry, ma’am,” the doctor says, “but your husband is negatively alive;” in sports -- “Well, Joe, unless the Orioles can cut down that negative lead of theirs, they’re likely headed for a negative win;” and in the news -- “The situation in Yemen is shaping up to be yet another negative triumph for U.S. foreign policy.” For that matter, it’s time to update one of the more useful proverbs of recent years: what do you call an economist who makes a prediction? Negatively right.

more

http://worldnewstrust.com/a-field-guide-to-negative-progress-john-michael-greer

[bemildred]

1. One of the strengths of the English language is its vast vocabulary,

and the accumulated baggage of nuance and allusion which it is embedded in.

And all of this erasure of distinctions ("negative progress" for retreat, for example) destroys that, intentionally, makes communication impossible. When failure is impossible, success means nothing too.

It makes us all stupider.