Linguistic ponderings...
A discussion earlier tonight helped crystallize something I'd been thinking about on and off for a while - about one of the ways that the choice of words used to express something can have a lot of subtle impacts, and sometimes expose certain underlying assumptions.
Very often, when people are speaking to or about someone who has a different lifestyle or belief system than they do, the word "need" seems to creep in there in a way that I find interesting:
Examples:
A need is a lack -- something missing in a person. A weakness. Think of your mental image of a "needy" person -- chances are that the qualities that come to mind are weak, pitiful, high-maintenance, a pain to be around. If someone else needs a particular thing and you don't, the implication is that you are stronger, more together, more complete than they area. They have a lack that needs to be filled, a shortage that must be compensated for -- you are above all that. You don't "need" what they do. So implicitly, using that terminology positions the speaker as better or stronger than the person they're speaking to or about.
In addition, it removes agency from the "needy" person -- if their difference is something they need to or have to do or believe, then they aren't really making a free choice. The matter in questions ceases to be something where an intelligent adult could consider all possible options and choose freely -- it's something people either feel compelled to do or they don't. Which of course also means that the choices of the person speaking are also not simply choices, and thus not open to question or challenge -- they become the default, the way things automatically are if you don't "have to" or "feel the need to" do otherwise.
Here's something interesting to try: the next time you find yourself thinking or saying something like the above examples, try reframing them, substituting something like more neutral like "choose", "prefer", "like" or "enjoy". See how different things sound when you credit the other person with the ability to make a choice or express a preference.
Or take a step further and try something like "be open to" -- "Why are some people open to the possibility of multiple partners/the existence of divinity/etc.?" sounds a lot different than "Why do some people need multiple partners/etc." It inverts the power dynamic inherent in need-speak and positions the person being spoken of as having more choices, more options. Which is not exactly neutral, but can be an interesting way of challenging your own perspective and trying to put yourself in another person's shoes.
The specific topic under discussion tonight that sparked me thinking about this again was the atheism vs. spirituality example, but I've run into the same dynamic in all the other contexts listed above and then some. Sometimes, if I'm feeling obstinate, I'll respond to the "Why do you need to X?" with simply "I don't" and let them puzzle it out. Other times I'll say something more like "I don't need to -- I choose to. There's a difference."
Of course, this will probably all sound like just semantic nit-picking to many, but I find that communication tends to happen more easily and clearly when we think about the words we use and what baggage they bring with them. Language is rarely value-free.
Very often, when people are speaking to or about someone who has a different lifestyle or belief system than they do, the word "need" seems to creep in there in a way that I find interesting:
Examples:
- Atheist to spiritual person: "But why do you need to believe in X?" or "I don't need to believe in X."
- Monogamous person to polyamorous person: "Why do you need to have more than one partner? Why can't one be enough?"
- Vanilla person speaking about kink: "I don't understand why some people need to mix pleasure and pain."
- Pagan kvetching about other pagans: "Why do so many pagans feel the need to [insert disapproved-of behaviour here: wear occult jewelry, use Craft names, wear robes in ritual, incorporate mediaeval/renaissance elements into their everyday clothing, etc.]?" (actually, that sums up about half the posts in nonfluffypagans...)
A need is a lack -- something missing in a person. A weakness. Think of your mental image of a "needy" person -- chances are that the qualities that come to mind are weak, pitiful, high-maintenance, a pain to be around. If someone else needs a particular thing and you don't, the implication is that you are stronger, more together, more complete than they area. They have a lack that needs to be filled, a shortage that must be compensated for -- you are above all that. You don't "need" what they do. So implicitly, using that terminology positions the speaker as better or stronger than the person they're speaking to or about.
In addition, it removes agency from the "needy" person -- if their difference is something they need to or have to do or believe, then they aren't really making a free choice. The matter in questions ceases to be something where an intelligent adult could consider all possible options and choose freely -- it's something people either feel compelled to do or they don't. Which of course also means that the choices of the person speaking are also not simply choices, and thus not open to question or challenge -- they become the default, the way things automatically are if you don't "have to" or "feel the need to" do otherwise.
Here's something interesting to try: the next time you find yourself thinking or saying something like the above examples, try reframing them, substituting something like more neutral like "choose", "prefer", "like" or "enjoy". See how different things sound when you credit the other person with the ability to make a choice or express a preference.
Or take a step further and try something like "be open to" -- "Why are some people open to the possibility of multiple partners/the existence of divinity/etc.?" sounds a lot different than "Why do some people need multiple partners/etc." It inverts the power dynamic inherent in need-speak and positions the person being spoken of as having more choices, more options. Which is not exactly neutral, but can be an interesting way of challenging your own perspective and trying to put yourself in another person's shoes.
The specific topic under discussion tonight that sparked me thinking about this again was the atheism vs. spirituality example, but I've run into the same dynamic in all the other contexts listed above and then some. Sometimes, if I'm feeling obstinate, I'll respond to the "Why do you need to X?" with simply "I don't" and let them puzzle it out. Other times I'll say something more like "I don't need to -- I choose to. There's a difference."
Of course, this will probably all sound like just semantic nit-picking to many, but I find that communication tends to happen more easily and clearly when we think about the words we use and what baggage they bring with them. Language is rarely value-free.