Some might, alternatively, suggest that a habit of AVOIDING such terms, even when accurate, merely leads to a more
passive-aggressive culture. This kind of thing then becomes a metaphorical game of "chicken" with emotional regulation and verbal acuity with euphemism governing the winners, because the underlying hostility is certainly not kept in check. It's my own hypothesis that such passive-aggressive games which tamp down negative feelings and leave them few/no outlets probably play some role in explosive acts of violence (such as school or workplace shootings).
Such cultural norms result in hidden and covert violence and barriers which then become more difficult to confront effectively-- they don't go away because of papering them with "nice." However, if one complains of being the victim of such antics, one is labeled as "difficult" or "antagonistic" or even "inappropriate."
It's just more dishonest. The best example of this is the patronizing elements of racist culture in the early 20th century "Jim Crow" laws-- separate
wasn't equal, and everyone knew it, but saying so was "rude" or "offensive." Because apparently if one was African American, it was more "appropriate" to be pleased to have racially designated drinking fountains, schools, entrances, etc.
Complaining was seen as "offensive." Offensive to those who maintained the status quo, to be sure.
It is also what lay under misogynistic cultural norms of "protecting" women from the harsher realities of life-- like literacy, current events, politics/governance, ownership of property, equal pay, workforce participation, engaging in male-dominated activities.... that kind of thing.
Human beings are
not particularly "nice" as a general rule, and pretending that they are by papering over the less savory aspects of human history, thought, and lived experience merely gives the most predatory human beings more room in which to operate.
This is the problem with passive-aggression: there IS no way to "win" without sinking to that same level of dishonesty or appearing to be a horrible, aggressive (perhaps even "abusive") person. Anyone who was raised by such a parent knows that one all too well. Passive-aggression is, at its heart, about controlling and manipulating others using
their finer instincts (compassion, conscience, etc) to work the magic of getting whatever you want from them and making THEM look bad if they don't comply.
Coming from lower SES means that one becomes socially and functionally
less "literate" somehow as a direct result? I doubt this very much.
So the word "hate" is just-- because the individual lacks a better, nuanced, more
erudite term? That seems fairly presumptuous without more information. What if she MEANT it? I've read books that I felt that way about. Perhaps this is instead a result of having a prevailing cultural perspective which devalues emotional
intensity,, hmmm?
I do agree that at the other end of the SES, a rich array of experiences which include NEGATIVE experiences is probably a bit lacking during childhood, which is to say that some of those individuals lack emotional coping skills (and social ones, too, in my experience) for
negative concepts, emotions, and social interactions. This seems to be what is being stated in the original article, in fact. That particular skill set is one that develops in those from poor childhood circumstances alongside resilience (which obviously is far from universal); some people develop poor or maladaptive coping, certainly-- and some do not.
I think that the corollary for those from privileged circumstances might be the development of empathy and unselfishness versus
entitlement as a result of living with no unmet needs and few unmet wants. So sure-- some people from hostile beginnings fail to develop resilience or social literacy, but some of them develop such things quite well.
The verbiage generally isn't what people have a problem with in this sort of peer group censoriousness in action. What they really seem to be objecting to is the underlying sentiments being expressed. However, that is something that it is not appropriate for any human being to control in another. This is brainwashing, in fact; the control of what is acceptable to believe, think, or feel in another. If one prevents others from speaking their minds, alternatively, then all you have done is made a false world to exist within-- in ignorance of the reality around one. It's just got the veneer of gentility-- and make no mistake, ONLY the veneer of it. People are not different because of their choice of language or their manner of dress or customs, though many human beings would like to believe that they are. In fact, sociopaths make pretty clever use of this particular quirk of human nature.In the case of the book club incident, I'd humbly submit that perhaps those who were deeply offended by the opinion of one member re: her personal feelings about the selection should
consider a less internalized and personalized view of the world. Assuming that this was genuine in the first place, and not just a means of "othering" someone that the mean girls elected to oust for their differences-- and the extensive gossiping after the fact rather argues for that, IME.
You know, they could have considered it a way of expanding their own social literacy and thinking, which I'd have said was a pretty key reason to be attending a book club in the first place. Or, coming full circle, to attend COLLEGE for that matter.
