February 07, 2003
For or Against?
I've noticed that Avon has lovely signs on the Metro advertising its "Walk for Breast Cancer." A cursory search reveals other such misnamed causes: a walk for hunger, action for AIDS, a walk for domestic violence.
Now, I'm pretty sure that Avon isn't actually "for" breast cancer, any more than Project Bread is for hunger, or Action for AIDS is actually in favor of AIDS. And it's not like this has become some sort of convention; after all, there are artists against AIDS, a group called Action Against Hunger, and even a walk against breast cancer. There's no word yet on whether they will run into the walk for breast cancer, and if so, who has the right-of-way.
I suspect all this "for" language is simply sloppy thinking codified in each organization's literature. You can see how that would happen: a group in HR (it's always HR) comes up with a plan to get employees involved in a good cause. The company's leaders get on board to show that they care for the community (because providing quality products at a decent price is no longer evidence of social benefit). Only negative people are against anything, and so "for" slips into the verbage. Slogans are drawn up, tentative artwork produced, events penciled in.
As the campaign makes its way along, it rigidifies. Sure, it has to win approval from upper management, but how many of those guys are literary giants? (Click here, for example, to learn how you can "optimize channels by making offers through the most cost-appropriate access based on the value of the customer." Unclear language only proliferates in organizations; it is rarely weeded out.
Perhaps eventually somebody added to the team (proving that you are not evil capitalists is labor-intensive work) has the temerity to note that the company is not actually for the horrible affliction that is the focus of its efforts. Wouldn't it be better to change all of the printed material to read "against?" This is a mistake, because at the heart of every Socialist is an iron-fisted dictator, and most people in HR are Socialists by training, if not disposition. They tend not to cotton to dissent. Hey Shakespeare, can you spell "severance agreement?"
And the campaign rolls forward, until one afternoon a smart-aleck with his own website notices how curious it is that a major corporation would wage a campaign for breast cancer. And, as you can see, that day has come.
Posted by Woodlief on February 07, 2003 at 09:25 AM
Of course, second only to the poor use of language in corporations is the deliberate misuse in marketing campaigns.
Everyday means mundane or usual. Every day means each individual day in succession. Except not anymore, thanks to those boneheads at Toyota, who thought that Everyday LOOKED BETTER than Every Day, even though they MEANT Every Day, not Everyday. Now that misuse is showing up everywhere. I hate you, Toyota.
Not that I am in any way (anyway) bitter. Rat bastards.
Posted by: Tracey at February 7, 2003 10:09 AM
Reminds me of the annual United Way Campaign. Every year all the corporate executives browbeat their employees into giving back some of their hard earned pay to support a worhless (any organization that eats up 50% of the take in overhead is worthless; and I won't even comment on some of the organizations they support) pseudo-charity. All this so that he/she can go to the club and tell their buddies "Mine is bigger than yours".
All this to say that isn't it terrible that even charity has been commercialized. It's why I refuse to become involved. I just tell them I support charitable causes through my church and I don't care to become involved. By the way, this makes be a bad corporate citizen. How lovely.
BAH! HUMBUG! Have a nice day!
Posted by: Scott at February 7, 2003 10:36 AM
Scott: When I worked for a bank, I remember walking into one of the executive's offices. He was glaring at a few of those United Way forms. Presumably the ones where folks opted out. And that was before their current assault on the Boy Scouts. The optouts made him look bad, you see...
Posted by: Davey at February 7, 2003 10:45 AM
As a federal employee, I get hit by the Combined Federal Campaign (I think that is its name) every year, whereupon I spend a day bored out of my mind while the muckety-mucks try to convince me to send my money to various charities (your tax dollars at work, me bored all day).
Some of the people up top get highly annoyed (to say the least) if you refuse, which is why I have fun every year telling them to their faces to keep their forms (I will not be using them). No promotions for me, I guess. Heh.
Posted by: Clint at February 7, 2003 1:51 PM
There's a scene in an episode of Cheers where Woody lists a bunch of wholesome things he has to do on his day off. The purpose (for the writers, not the character) was to contrast Woody with the pathetic selfish life of one of the other characters, I think Rebecca.
Anyway, among the list, Woody says, "Oh, and on Sunday I'm taking part in the Walkathon for Illiteracy. [One Beat, Two Beats] We're against it."
Posted by: Mark at February 7, 2003 4:41 PM
Damn, I knew this reminded me of something, and I finally found it, in Matthew Parris' indispensible Read My Lips: A Treasury of the Things Politicians Wish They Hadn't Said. It's credited to Bush the Elder, of all people: "I stand for anti-bigotry, anti-semitism and anti-racism."
Oops.
Posted by: Michelle Dulak at February 8, 2003 5:33 PM
It seems a way with words is a Bush family trait. . .
Posted by: Lou at February 8, 2003 9:25 PM
Posted by: susanna at February 11, 2003 11:54 AM
It's amazing to see how new words are invented.
I treasure the way we morph nouns and adjectives into verbs. "Rigidify." Wonderful!
Posted by: Dean Esmay at February 13, 2003 6:03 AM
Re: "rigidify" - the news groups that discuss things linguistic interminably, have discussions on this sort of word. The process of turning other parts of speech into verbs is called "verbing," itself an example of the practice. I don't doubt that "nouning" and "adjectiving" can also occur.
Back on topic:
The preposition "for" has more than one meaning. The one Tony has chosen is "in favor of." It can, of course, mean "with respect to," "because of," or indicate an object of attention. I think that one of the alternatives is intended, and probably understood by most of us, Tony included.
Posted by: Henry at February 20, 2003 10:54 AM
