20 comments Add a comment
Can anyone explain the obsession nowadays with changing long-established, well-understood words for new words which are unclear and misleading? Some of the changes are obviously due to Political Correctness but other changes seem to have been made purely to confuse us.
Take, for example, "Personnel Department", a clear description of an office which deals with recruitment and organisation of a workforce in a business. This has been replaced, without explanation, with "Human Resources", a term which sounds as if it concerns employees laid out on a meat rack. "Human Resources" itself has become too much of a mouthful: callers to my small business now ask to speak to "HR", Exactly what has been gained by changing 'Personnel' to 'HR'?
Some of these changes are actually detrimental to the running of the business. I phoned my bank recently with a minor query and went through the usual series of menus, trying to get through to a bank representative. Eventually I was offered a choice of "Balance" or "Agent". Presumably "Representative" has now been replaced by "Agent" but this term sounds too much like somebody trying to sell me something. I rang off.
There are countless similar examples. Are you happy about our "Police Force" now being described as a "Police Service"? Do our railways run more smoothly because we are now "Customers" instead of "Passengers"? Add your own examples.
This gripe sounds trivial but clarity of language is one of our defences against state tyranny and we should do more to oppose this constant distortion of familiar English words and phrases.
George Orwell showed so clearly in "1984" that destruction of a country's traditions and way of speaking is one of the first steps towards control of the population. Today we have Hype and Spin: tomorrow we may see the setting up of The Ministry Of Love.
By: Oracle2007
Leave a comment
I don't know about the U.K., but in the U.S., the president of any small company, these days, refuses to call himself anything but C.E.O. In fact, for some of them it is not enough to be C.E.O. of a small company, so they call themselves "President and C.E.O."
In fact, I know one of them that glorifies not only himself, but all of his employees as well. His personal secretary, for example, has the title, "Vice President of Administration and Human Resources."
Of course, all the while, Communist thought always creeps in--taught early in schools but always called by different names--with the intention of diminishing the achievements of the individual and exalting the accomplishments of the "community." Consequently, in the U.S., the titles of company officers are often removed altogether from their business cards (calling cards), and, consequently, instead of "Director of Planning," he is now recognized only as a member of the community; his card may simply say "John Doe, Planning Team;" instead of being a leader he is merely a member.
Our politicians here have also exhibited a serious case of megalomania. Our "County Commissioners," for example, are now sometimes known as "C.E.O. of ___ County," as if they were running a business. (Perhaps it is rather a clue as to what is really going on behind the scenes.)
Companies used to sit back and decide their long-term goals together. Now they call it their "mission," instead. Some are even more mentally inept than that, perceiving an imaginary distinction between "mission" and "goal," and spend time writing out each. I am told that there are business seminars offered in which this artificial distinction is more clearly delineated. Charles Hobbs, businessman and author of the book, Time Power, put it bluntly when he said regarding this supposed distinction, "Who cares?" The better question would be, "Who is responsible for this time-wasting nonsense, and why is he still employed?"
I went looking for the "manual" for a certain machine that I had bought recently, and discovered that it was now a "user's guide." In fact, to make matters worse, instead of being one booklet, it is now divided into two: one of them is called "Getting Started" and the other is the "User's Guide." So now, if you are looking for the answer to a certain question, and it cannot be found in the one, it may possibly be in the other. Your search now takes twice as long.
In fact, instead of explaining how to use the machine, step by step, they teach you certain aspects of the use, and then include the other details in the margin, on every page, in a boxed-in area called "Tips" or "Hints". There is no difference between these tips and hints and the text of the manual, other than the fact that they are more minor details that could easily have been included in the body.
It is no coincidence that one publication resembles another, or that one company uses the same corpus of Newspeak as another, because, in the end, it merely illustrates the frailty of human nature and the vanity of mankind's inventions.
"Surely men of low degree are a vapor, Men of high degree are a lie; If they are weighed on the scales, They are altogether lighter than vapor." (Ps. 62.9)
Thanks for posting I thought I was alone!
Patients are just that not “service users”, I am a rate payer not a “customer” the list is endless and I wonder who they think they are fooling that in some way by changing the name we, the end user, think we get a better service. I am a pessimist and always see the glass half empty so when a government department changes its name all I see is the millions spent on rebranding everything and how that money could be better spent! What did happen to the DSS I wonder?
Hijacking of words that already have a recognised meaning is also common; my favourite example is the “resolution” of TV screens. I have always thought resolution was dots per unit measurement and that is certainly true if you buy a printer. But buy a television and suddenly it’s the number of pixels on the whole screen! You buy a full HD screen of any size you get the same number of pixels thus as the screen size goes up the “true” dots per square inch go down and that’s what I call the resolution.
As you say it’s spin and where there is spin there is motive and the motivation you can be absolutely sure is not customer service.
Consider this. When do CEOs or corporate directors ever get hired through Human Resource Departments? Managers and supervisors, perhaps. Someone mentioned Staffing Office. How about Labor Pool Table? That’s for mail clerks, and copy machine operators, and file clerks.
In today’s world of disguises, no self-respecting person wants to be anything less than an administrative assistant. HR needs a new title, something like: Human Educational and Corporate Community Development Division. That should make any hourly wage slave feel good about themselves and the future.
Also, the police are not a 'service' - law,order and justice are cornerstones of civilisation. There are times when that is 'force' - pure and simple. People who interact with the police are not there for a 'customer experience'.
As Mark Twain once said (I believe) - "Common sense ain't".
I used to laugh every time Ann Robinson on "The Weakest Link" challenged her contestants to give a more concise description of their airy-fairy-sounding jobs. Certainly used to bring some of them down to earth with a wallop.
Staffing office?
Actually the renaming is simply a refelection of the fact that human beings are now simply ciphers, and of no real consequence to the business.
I think some of the worst people at tech talk are computer technicians.They tend to talk to you in highly technical language assuming that you actually know what they are waffling on about.I usually let them waffle for about half an hour then tell them that I don't understand a word they've said and could they repeat in simple terms.
Isn't political correctness an attempt to curb Freedom of Speech?
Something that results in a change of department name within an organisation - public or private is going to be the result of some Consultancy excercise carried out by the organisation. The silly changes reflect an organisation's poor managerial ability. The fact that such terms could be copied by others is just demoralizing. If the organisation was well managed, why would it need to buy into everything a consultancy exercise recommends?
Chad