Nobody Here But Us Professionals
from The Graves of Academe by Richard Mitchell
The works of Weischadle, associate professor of education at Montclair State College in New Jersey, can be studied at length in the New Jersey section of The New York Times for July 16, 1978. His piece is called, naturally, Educating the Parents.
Mass illiteracy he easily dismisses as a matter of problem youngsters, but those uppity parents who are beginning to complain about illiteracy they need to be taught a lesson. They can vote! If we dont straighten those malcontents out right away, they might end up listening to demagogues and voting against some of our favorite monies. Worse yet, and its with this fear that Weischadle begins his finger-wagging, some of them might win those malpractice suits that theyre discussing with their lawyers.
Weischadle protests that even if illiteracy were the fault of the schools, that wouldnt mean that the schools were to blame. Heres the delicate way he puts it:
Have the critics been fair to the schools? To the extent that schools are responsible for a youngsters educational growth, the critics have dealt with the right party. However, it does not necessarily mean that professionals in the schools are inept. It does mean that educational leadership has failed to articulate the problem effectively and carry out the necessary programs.
Its hard to know exactly what Weischadle means by that articulate. First we thought that the professionals had been unable to utter intelligible sounds, for that reading does reflect experience. However, in this kind of writing, no professional would ever waste a nifty word like articulate on such a simple thought. Next we guessed that the man might be saying that the professionals had been unable to define the problem thoroughly and accurately. That, too, we had to reject. Such inability would be remarkably similar to ineptitude in professionals, surely, but Weischadle says theyre not inept. Only one possibility remains: To articulate the problem effectively must mean to find some description that will keep irate parents from thinking that the professionals are inept. Of course! Thats just what Weischadles is up to in this piece educating the parents.
He does some pretty fancy articulating as well. Where do they learn that language? In the ordinary graduate school, candidates are expected to be competent in a couple of foreign languages, but in those education places they know that skill in language will cripple the budding professional by enabling him to say things plainly. You get no monies that way. Straight talk would mean the end of effective articulation as we know it.
Here are some examples of bent talk from Weischadles little piece. He wont say that people are talking about something; he says that much recent discussion has focused on it. He cant say, Hurry; he says that delay should not be allowed to take place. He cant say that people should use wisely what they have; he says that an enlightened utilization . . . must be present. He cant say that the people who deal out discipline should be consistent; he says that the haphazard application of disciplinary action . . . must be eliminated. He cant say, Dont worry. He says that uneasiness should be settled.
Still, we worry. For one thing, there is no clear meaning in the settling of uneasiness. In fact, it sounds ominous. If the settling of uneasiness has the same effect as the settling of terms or plans, we dont want any part of it. For another, how can we take any comfort from a teacher of teachers who condescends, in broken English, to explain why we should have complete confidence in him and other professionals, so that they may get on, unhampered by our ill-informed and amateurish complaints, with the acquisition . . . of monies to enact better programs that will, this time around, solve the illiteracy problem?
In these examples of Weischadles tortured English, the grammatical subjects are things, not persons, and abstract things at that. All things that must be done by people, but we see no people. This language suggests a world where responsible agents, the doers of deeds, have been magically occulted by the deeds themselves. A weird structure of that sort, utilization must be present, for example, has the merit (?) of excusing somebody from an obligation to use something. If things go wrong, therefore, its not any persons fault; its just that utilization wasnt present.
Such structures, furthermore, often generate certain morally flavored auxiliary verbs: delay should not application must, etc. This is another grammatically symbolized cop-out which implies that moral obligation falls upon deeds rather than doers. It is up to those negligent deeds to get themselves done. This is convenient for those professionals who wont be able to do them.
Normal English, in its typical structure, a simple sentence in the active voice, implies a world where agents perform acts. There are times when we would wish it otherwise, and in our minds we can devise subterfuges that will make it seem otherwise. We do the business of the mind in language, and we make our subterfuges of the same stuff. Weischadle, in his grammatical gyrations, is not just writing bad English; he is positing a certain kind of world. In that world, one can parler sans parler like Castorp and reject in advance all responsibility for what one says. Heres how Weischadle does it indeed, how almost anyone of those professionals would do it: The pre-school years have been recognized as being important formulative years.
He probably means formative, although he may be thinking that the pre-school years are the years spent sucking a formula from bottles but no matter. The important thing is the grotesque contortion by which he escapes having to say that the pre-school years are formative, or, if you like, formulative. It matters not at all to the professional that what he has to say is obvious and banal and widely enough known that it needs no saying; he still finds a way to evade responsibility for having said it. In this timid language of misdirection and abdication, no one would dare stand forth and proclaim that a turkey is a turkey. He might mutter, tentatively, that a turkey has been recognized as being a turkey although not necessarily by him.
Into such prose, human beings vanish. No wonder we couldnt discover Weischadles salary. He has withdrawn into the precincts of the passive voice. He has given over all doing of deeds and drawn up about him the mists of circumlocution. Far from our ken, he has sojourned in the land of the self-eliminating application and followed the spoor of the place-taking delay. He is, by now, by gloomy night and periphrastics compassed round. He is, in short, or sort of short, no longer recognized as being Weischadle. Now we see the truth. There is no Weischadle.