Comment 40123

By d.knox (registered) | Posted April 24, 2010 at 16:46:06

The language used around this debate, including in this article itself, is fascinating.

The Spec series is a "serious wake-up call to a city that has grown complacent with the extreme levels of inequity between the affluent and the disadvantaged". Even just framing the argument this way affects the discussion. Affluent is an adjective, strictly a descriptor, referring to someone/something with wealth - money, property, possessions. Disadvantaged is a verbal, past participle of the verb disadvantage. It functions as an adjective, but contains the implicit meaning of having been done to. It puts the described person into the role of victim, passively being acted upon by external forces. Affluent and disadvantaged do not have opposite meanings - it's not even like saying povertied.

Affluent people could be disadvantaged and non-affluent people are not by definition disadvantaged, they just don't have much wealth. I also have a problem with the forced dichotomy, as if there are only two categories - the implication in this framing is that you are one or the other.

Even the use of the word inequity: "extreme levels of inequity" is influential. Equity is about fairness, justice and impartiality. So we have extreme levels of unfairness, injustice, and partiality? Really? Isn't this begging the question? Do we just mean inequality? It's hardly a good point to be starting an open and honest discussion about solving problems.

Still, regardless of language, the series was interesting, and as promised, it generated a great deal of discussion.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds