© Pierre Maré,
2004 - 2007
Offbeat 117
I love jargon. Every single mispronounced, misunderstood, misdirected word speaks volumes to me about the longings of some, the misunderstanding of others and the self-importance of yet more.
In the latter regard, note that the more syllables and the farther removed from the root of the word, the more ‘apparently important and knowing’ the person who utters the word.
Witness for instance that marvelous construction, ‘arrive expeditiously’. Simply saying ‘get there on time’ just won’t do. On the other hand, concepts that can be expressed in a few short words, seem to travel further. A Greek guy said words to this effect a couple of thousand years ago. Perhaps he used jargon to express the sentiment though. The idea still hasn’t taken root.
Right now, one of the words which tickles my fancy is ‘decentralisation’, or ‘not living in a whole bunch’, if you aren’t particularly worried about displays of ‘erudition’.
I am not a person who freely chooses to live in the company of neighbours. I am an introvert by nature, and happier sitting alone in a room with a book rather than engaging in the pastime of idle gossip. This is supported by the further phenomenon of a string of neighbours who arrive home early in the morning, drunk with their music blaring.
I have nothing against drunk neighbours, or their staying up well past my bedtime. The problem arises with the volume of the music with which they express themselves and the style. If you are intent on waking me an hour or two before I normally arise, please do it with something decent, not a piece of banal bubblegum pop that is better suited to the emotional sensibilities of a hormonal twelve year old. If it really is necessary to complete the magic of the moment, at least get hold of an MP3 player.
All-in-all, I like the idea of decentralisation, especially if it involves neighbours out of sight and out of mind, and especially out of hearing range.
The other implicit beauty of the concept of decentralisation lies in the fact that, to my mind, it represents progression of the human race to a new evolutionary level.
Humans decided to live together on the basis of ‘safety in numbers’. What never seemed to register is the fact that a larger group leads to a greater concentration, and ease of access for predators, human, animal, political and otherwise. So although someone would probably die, everyone who made it would be able to breathe a sigh of relief and say, “There but for the grace of God go I.”
Of course this led to a number of benefits. For instance, if there are other people around, you can always get someone else to do the chores for you with the application of money and / or brutality, leading to the concepts of employment, the division of labour and ultimately even unionization, a remarkable reversal which limits initiative to the point where the brutal, exploitative employer actually has to do the work, and pay for the privilege of having employees.
But centralization also had its drawbacks. Aside from representing a smorgasbord for predators, microbial life forms and politicians of various degrees of wickedness, it also concentrated all the brains where the money was. So for instance, doctors chose to live in wealthier cities with golf courses, leaving smaller settlements relatively at the mercy of the common cold, disfiguring looks which cold be corrected with a bit of plastic surgery, and whatever other condition came along. And then there are the obvious problems associated with neighbours.
But now, thanks to the internet, and ‘streamlined logistics’, another lovely piece of jargon, we can move away from the pesky neighbours, at least as soon as we scrape together enough money to do so. What a wonderful idea!
And in this climate in which we can, theoretically go our own separate ways, perhaps we will not define ourselves by the thoughts and behaviour of others, and rather rely on ourselves.
As far as jargon goes, ‘decentralisation’ is my favourite, at least for this week.
Back to the archive • Previous • Next • Home
