Let’s chat a little bit about language today, specifically the chasm between the meaning and the intent or connotation of certain utterances. Veiled compliments… “You’re very astute,” does that mean I pick up on things quickly, am a keen observer, or did I just get called a dumbass? I suppose in that case context is everything. If a teacher tells me that I’m probably taking it as a compliment. If my old frat buddy tells me that after I make an obvious observation…not so much. The difference is pretty easy to see.
But what of this situation: a good friend today was told by her boss that she is “scrupulous.” The context was fairly mundane…they were discussing the work of some coworkers and my friend said she would have a talk with them about their performance. Her boss told her that’s a good idea “you’re very scrupulous.” Is this a compliment? The word by definition means adherent to a strong sense of right and wrong or being precise and accurate. Not bad things. One would definitely take it as an insult to be called “unscrupulous” or told that one “has no scruples.” But is the inverse necessarily true? It seems to me that the connotations associated with this word have dissociated it from this original meaning. In our game of common discourse to call someone scrupulous has become quite akin to calling them a tight-ass, a stickler for the rules, and one who is a slave to minute details. A scrupulous person probably wouldn’t be much fun to grab a beer with.
We collectively get to decide when the intent of the words we use change. They’re not static and a dictionary definition can never fully capture them. So is this a word that has? Or maybe it’s stuck somewhere in the middle. Maybe it hasn’t yet become its own antonym. After all, in this context it seems to be if not a compliment, at least a reinforcement of why my friend should have the talk. Her coworkers are missing the details, and her boss knows that she pays attention to them. However, the fact that she came away from the dialogue thinking about whether it was an insult or not implies some underlying shifts taking place in the game. The word, if not fully dissociated from its meaning, at the very least triggers a reaction that its original form did not intend. It’s interesting to think about these little anomalies…after all, language is fun!
Or maybe I should just get this stick outta my butt and stop being so scrupulous…
2 comments:
Good post, Moron, and very interesting discussion. But I think you might be missing an important detail in your analysis...this "scrupulous" staffer works in politics. Doesn't that add a whole new level to the question? Could there be a different connotation to the world in the political arena than there is in, say, banking?? I'd argue yes. Please keep your dirty politician jokes to a minimum...
Ok...doing everything I can to avoid the jokes...Comedic Gods forgive me.
So what changes if "scrupulous" in this case is playing in the game of political discourse instead of common discourse? We look for scrupulous politicians (though we don't find many) b/c we're looking for those we trust, those with a strong sense of morality. Maybe there isn't an insulting connotation here. But why did she feel the need to question the intent of the "compliment?" That's where the interesting questions lie. It's not what the word means on the surface, but the reactions that it illicits that unveil its true connotations. So even if this was a compliment in the political arena...it still carries baggage....right?
Post a Comment