I used to have a deep revulsion for cliches in general, so I definitely get where this guy is coming from. The thing is, cliches work when they encode concepts in ways that everyone understands. I don't remember the specific example, but I remember one conversation where I was tediously trying to explain and apply a concept that there was already a 3-4 word cliche for, and the person I was talking to impatiently just blurted out the cliche at me. I was annoyed because I was trying to avoid invoking cliches, but I later realized that invoking cliches can actually be an efficient form of communication.
I noticed NPR commentators in the US (particularly younger, progressive ones) love the adjective "problematic."
Upon reflection in the car, I literally have no idea what information they're trying to convey via its use. It seems obviously defined on its face, but problematically lacking when one tries to characterize it in detail.
Are you saying it's bad? Wrong? Unjust? I have no idea!
That word very quickly became nonsensical filler for "it's bad" or "I don't like it" or "I disagree".
At one point it was useful for some specific cases (like all such words) but the nature of it being vague meant you could throw it around aimlessly ... and it lost meaning quickly.
It happens with a lot of new phrases and words that seem to carry with them some depth and such and they are quickly abused to the point of losing all meaning and context.
"I don't like it" sounds like your own subjective opinion, but "it's problematic" projects your own subjectivity on to the object as if it was a property of the object.
It's typically used in reference to a well-known criticism or controversy. If you're the first one to flag the problem, then you would be more precise.
Firstly , saying something is simply wrong or unjust is far too black and white is many situations. Worse then it could be or less just then an alternative seem like more readily available goals, and a far better lens through which to identify problems and solutions. The focus isn't on being judgemental, but on problem solving, and it's somewhat ironic that it's become considered politically charged.
With this context, saying something is problematic is saying there a problem there in the sense that it could be improved to something more moral, just, kind, etc. Of course, just like most of these similar words its broad and abstract, and if you are ever confused why someone considers something problematic you can ask or independently learn or study the issues.
As far as actual usage as a word, I've seen a few common useful ones.
- As an initial statement prior to explaining the actual details and reasoning. Hopefully this one is not confusing people, but often people dont read past a headline so...
- A categorization of something specifically to be avoided in discussion for simplicity. You discuss or explain a simplified idea, and leave the problematic bits out til later, as a method of organizing, like when learning math or whatever.
- Casual shorthand between people with a similar set of understanding and arguments to point something out. This unfortunately leaks out to people who dont share in that common terminology and get confused. Its unfortunate that instead of, say, getting curious to understand the missing pieces of arguments, some people seem to just assume it's some kind of fluff and dismiss it out of hand.
Hopefully something here can provide clarity of terminology for some, and if they still want to problematize problematic can clarify in what way and why.
Technically, it means: "there is a problem here." Practically, it means: "I'm going to start complaining now, and if you don't agree with me, you are the problem."
One of my favorite "problems" is based on the "fact" that everything we see in media becomes a transcendental reality that nobody can evade, thus we have to constantly fight over who gets represented and why and how. Of course the premise has massive holes in it, and the representation being fought over is often unimaginative clunky stuff churned out by a committee. But that's not problematic.
So whenever I see the word "problematic" I think of some bureaucratic middle manager looking over a memo from above dictating that he or she is required to enforce a policy directive.
Source: Am queer and read this kind of stuff all the time.
It's a social justice term: an acknowledgement that something might be racist/sexist/whatever-ist, or there's at least room for debate, but we're not getting into it right now.
"The author's approach towards female characters is problematic, but what I really want to focus on is..."
>without providing any reason or evidence or justification
Calling something 'problematic' doesn't in any way prevent you from providing a justification for that view. If people aren't providing justifications when they should, then that's a problem independent of the particular choice of words.
> Calling something 'problematic' doesn't in any way prevent you from providing a justification for that view.
Nor does any libelous or slandering statement or outright lying, but that doesn't remove your responsibility of supporting and substantiating your claims.
The "problematic" label is just a trick to poison the well.
My pet peeve: reporters using "that begs the question, why ...?". No, that doesn't beg the question, that raises a question. Better yet, just ask the question. AAARRRGHHH!!!
It's often a convenient shorthand for saying you think a person or policy is racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic etc without actually saying it.
It's like "alleged" only there's always an "alleged <something>", while "problematic" is only ever used alone.
IMHO it's overused, because of its distinct lack of clarity. It's especially incorrect when the reporter is injecting it themselves, as opposed to reporting what some other person said.
It meant that the problem was systemic, across multiple parts of society or a social structure. It made sense when discussing sexual abuse and the politics of 2015, cleaning up multiple structures like Hollywood and the church at the same time.
Losing the big picture worldview it came from has buried the word's meaning.
Cliches are boring if you’re writing fiction, but often in professional communication it’s okay to be boring if it makes your communication more concise and accurate.
The other phrase that gets my goat is "for your convenience and safety". When I hear that, my first thought is it will be something inconvenient that doesn't improve my safety.
You could combine these two phrases!
"Out of an abundance of caution, we now require you to $SOMETHING for your convenience and safety."
What is funny is that is not at all my experience right now. The only people I see using the phrase “out of an abundance of caution” are the ones who are massively under reacting, but want to be seen doing something. For instance my gym just sent out an email telling people to make sure they wash their hands when they come to the gym. That email was described as being sent out of “an abundance of caution”.
Yeah, there are times and situations where this is appropriate; now is not one of them. In the current circumstances a 40-70% chance of contracting, and a 5% mortality rate is neither low risk or low impact for an individual.
If you estimated the risk of something as fairly low probability but with a large impact: out of "an abundance of caution" is highly warranted. I would think getting your flu shot each year would qualify saying that.
agreed. i teach yoga a lot and that's all i've been dealing with. "out of an abundance of caution we'll be limiting class size to x" (which number does not allow for even four feet of space between students). they're coming around but the phrase is like an eye roll in these cases. it could be asterisk'd with "people get sick, grow the f up"
The legal phrase “Out of an abundance of caution” has a technical meaning: “The fact that I am dealing with this problem should not be taken to imply that I agree that there is any real legal problem or that I am taking any responsibility for one.”
Interesting. That doesn't match my informal understand, but actually explains a lot about how it's being used today. There is a certain amount of emphasis on weasely avoidance of liability and not earnestly confronting problems properly baked right in.
This may be intended to solve/work around the problem of Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics - i.e. if you as much as touch a small part of a problem, you're now considered responsible for solving the whole thing.
The exact opposite is happening with this phrase in the current situation. The only people saying they’re doing something, “out of an abundance of caution” seem really to be saying something like, “this doesn’t seem necessary, but we’re getting some pressure to do it, so we’re doing it,” or they’re saying it about actions that are far too limited given the actual threat.
Here’s an example from Chick-fil-A in my inbox: “We’ve instructed anyone who is not feeling well to stay home out of an abundance of caution...”
That’s not an abundance of caution, for crying out loud! That’s the absolute minimum anybody should be doing in response. It’s likely far too measured.
It's also a great way to encourage people who may, for example, be skeptical of everything to take actions they otherwise wouldn't.
Think you just have the common cold and won't be doing any harm by going out like normal? Well... out of an abundance of caution, stay home anyway.
Your point is well taken that this is probably the least anybody could be doing, but nonetheless, the actual actions being taken and the end result seems to be positive, which is far more important than the language behind it, IMO.
As the blog post points out, "Out of an abundance of caution" is used to hide the truth and harm people's freedom. I don't think "That's a great question" has serious problems like that.
"That's a great question" is a filler phrase that lets you stall while you're figuring out how to answer the question. It also flatters the asker of the question, so you can kill two birds with one stone.
One time I was asked a question while explaining something to a professor. I thought it was a really impressive and insightful question, so I said "that's a great question." I was briefly bewildered when he didn't register my complement, but then I realized...
The first time I remember hearing the phrase was in 2009 when Roberts flubbed the swearing in oath at Obama's inauguration. They later announced that the oath was administered again privately "out of an abundance of caution."
Was that the origin, or was it in use before that?
Specifically for "out of an abundance of caution", in Google Books there begin to be usages around 1911, based on a very quick search. As noted by someone else it's a pretty common phrase among American lawyers.
I think folks who make these announcements or send these emails just don't want to screw up and copy and paste what they see from other emails / announcements that they see. They just don't want to say something wrong / stupid...
As for the whole "risks" thing, some random administrator at a school has zero clue what the real risks are at this point, let alone even medical professionals who only know of confirmed cases.
This is unknown territory for everyone using that phrase and I'm not sure anyone knows what will happen in a day, two days, a week.
It seems like a tall order to ask people to " But let’s be honest with ourselves and others about the risks we face and act accordingly, rather than out of an abundance of caution. " when they don't know the risks seems like a loop right back to "an abundance of caution".
I use this as a heuristic for people/institutions with out of date risk models. It seems like it usually refers to a Coronavirus response that is at least 5 days behind the timely response, and often much more than that.
Does anyone have any good risk models / do any administrators for say schools, or anyplace that isn't medical really have any information that would provide them accurate risk models?
I think it is more, they just don't know / there isn't good data for them.
None of these examples are passive constructions! (The first two don't even involve verbs.)
Apologies for possibly being pedantic, but I do think this is necessary to point out. A lot of people seem to think that "passive" refers to statements that are vague about agency, or often something else vaguely along those lines. But active-vs-passive has nothing to do with that!
Now one could say, well, that's just not how people are using the word "passive" these days; but the thing is, I don't think whatever notion people are trying to express via "passive" is a useful one. Sometimes it means "vague about who's responsible", but often it doesn't; I don't think there's a useful notion worth salvaging in there.
Anyway for way more on this you can see Geoff Pullum's article on it[1], or the whole "passives" category[2] on Language Log...
"Thanks in advance" is kind of like the no-smoking signs that they changed to say "thank you for not smoking". Normally you thank someone after they do something, but by thanking them "in advance", you're passive-aggressively pressuring them to do the thing. After all, you've already thanked them, so they owe it to you.
Well, when people have no quantitative risk metric to judge their actions by, how else do you suppose they explain their thinking?
Would you have them say something like, "given the risk of inaction causing an incremental 2% infection cases among our customer population, we judged that imposing an added cost of $5 per employee and customer was a reasonable choice"?
Oh buddy, I hate "high rate of speed" so much. Speed is already a rate of travel. This is just adding words and blather in an attempt to sound official, and not too far from "utilize" in place of "use," or "methodology" in place of "system." Or "vehicle" for "car."
"Vehicle" is a little more generic. It could be a truck. Is a truck a car?
I suspect "vehicle" (and perhaps even "high rate of speed") might be frequently used by law enforcement because those are the same terms used in the statutory laws they are enforcing.
