Rectifications (20) – I will not apologise for….

Rectifications (20) – I will not apologise for….

Torrey Orton– January 13, 2010

"We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense."

Obama inauguration speech, 21 Jan '09

'I will not apologise for….' is one of the most egregiously shifty moves in current polispeak. The way to its critique must be cleared of 2 lookalike usages, the first of which I am happy to endorse in principle, though I'd quibble on specifics, as I may about almost anything of course.


That first belongs to a movement of another order occurring in a parallel universe – see here for one example. This is the proper assertion of a wholly justifiable claim like "I will not apologise for my power". This is an important self-statement, and public one if necessary, for minorities in almost any group setting. Minorities are strongly encouraged to mind the manners of their power anywhere in the view or hearing of majorities. The successful learn to repress their power, a major tool for which is the learned denial of its reality. This is often heard as a situationally appropriate assertion of role power surrounded with apologetics and disclaimers. Used as a self-statement it is an empowering tool; as a public statement, it marks the emergence into view of a power almost wholly self-accepted. Complete acceptance by self and others arrives when nothing has to be said.


The second lookalike appears as a movement here in cyberspace, at least, for 'saying it like it is'.
This is a counter to PCness and similarly repressive pabulum. It is probably a worthy enterprise in the struggle for ordinary language about ordinary things. These 'I will nots' are explicitly challenges to an imagined accepted opinion – e.g. 'I will not apologise for smoking, driving a V8, etc.'. They invite a debate, if not a punch-up. They are aggressive initiatives unlikely to attract much interest because clearly as devoted to their contrarianism as the notional counter-truths they express.


Finally there's the political, public spun discourse version, modelled in its least offensive form by Obama above. It is these I rage against. Their Australian prototypes - Rudd and Co. nationally and their state acolytes like Brumby- are represented by statements like 'we will not apologise for defending our shores from boat peoples while honouring our international obligations to assist those lost at sea' (that's a relatively undoctored version you will never hear). The difference between the latter and the Obama quote is that Obama has a disputant in mind (the terrorist Others) who have a track record of being successfully dangerous.


Boat-people are mainly a danger to themselves of course. They are more likely to die from and for their efforts to get to Oz than to damage the  locals who await them. Their fearfulness depends wholly on an ascribed status as potential terrorist Others, which 'we will not apologise' re-endorses each time spoken to reinvigorate the scared locals' fear. Shame on the hypocrisy of all those pretentiously religious leaders of our land who speak so! Their irreligious and a-religious colleagues of the spin faiths are shameful in their own theologically ungarnished ways.

Rectifications (16) – How’s your day been

Rectifications (16) – How's your day been…so far? Then, Have a nice day…

Torrey Orton– October 6, 2009

Many are the assaults of false connectedness, few so offensive as "How's your day been?", exceeded only by "How's your day been so far?" Both come almost solely from the mouths of casual retail workers* aged 15 to 20, often recent immigrants or more likely students of English speaking backgrounds who cannot possibly know what they are saying, socially. It can also be found in banks where staff are moderately more permanent, but still not real. Closing with 'Have a nice day' rounds out the insult.

False friendlies

What's the offense here? I've already attacked the false friendly – the would-be personal relationship ambit of contemporary retailing. In addition, there's the irritation of being asked a real question which solicits a real answer – an invasion I do not want when shopping in a place where almost none of the staff are recognisable from week to week (by contrast with my barber, barista and butcher!).

This particular phrase grates screechingly. I may get over it, but move on? I know I am not alone among my peer group (over 50's). The usage is widely despised. Maybe we will all deal with it and go forward…but then there will be another to replace it until we die because the roots of false friendly are deep in the dissimulations and pretensions of our culture.

So, what to do?

Here the immediate rectification is obvious and dubious at once. The obvious is to tell them its offensiveness to me. Dubious it is, however, that they will personally deserve the negative energy which will be attached, and also it is dubious that they could change it if they wanted to (assuming a successful instructional foray from me which was minimally offensive to them). They would probably be fired for ceasing and desisting as requested, since much cash and little intelligence has been devoted to training kids, and their elders masquerading as kids, to be customer friendly by uttering similar inanities with the pretence of making the experience personal.

Equally, they would probably be irritated in return, since there is nothing for them to understand about the language itself. It is a grammatically correct English expression. It is the language gifted to them by our times. And, if they are foreign students or immigrants, even from other English-speaking places, they will be trying to be local by speaking local, as one does. Should they be disturbed in their progress by irritating oldies? But more likely a source of their irritation would be this: by raising the issue of the inappropriateness of a certain verbal turn I would be shifting the relationship from false friendly into real, personal and possibly unfriendly. Not the engagement they had signed up for, nor intended by their irritating query, probably.

How to..?

Tactics is all once a strategy is in hand. My initial strategy is to test my assumptions about local usage of 'How's your day been..?' This will be precursor to designing a more broad-spectrum strategy for rectifying such usages. My tactics could be:

• Check with myself that my emotional engagement level is moderate or less, so the performance anxiety of trying this tactic doesn't blow up my irritation into anger.
  
• Ask if the service person has a second to talk.
  
• If yes, then point out I'm going to raise an issue they might find challenging, and that I don't want them to be worried – it's not a complaint. Nothing for management.
  
• Then, say I'm trying to understand certain language which is broadly used by service persons, as you just did, and is irritating to me
  
• Viz – 'How's your day been…(so far)?
  
• Can u tell me why you say this? Where did you learn it?
  
• If I told you I find it very irritating what would you think/ feel?
  
• Do you want to know why it is irritating?
  

My aim is to try this over the next week and see what comes of it. I should be able to report in 10 days or so. The next strategy step should be available then, too.

* If what's happening at Coles' checkout counters is any indicator, those kids will soon be working elsewhere anyway. There'll only be a couple of personally serviced lanes left for customers who can't be trusted with a credit card or like untraceable transactions.