Can descriptions be editorials?

[eplovejoy]

Please consider a construction along the lines of the following:

George is a white, married, blue-collar gun owner.

When you read something like that, does it seem to you that the writer has placed the descriptive elements in that order to emphasize one over the others? If so, which element in that sentence do you think is being emphasized?

To me, all four bits of description are equally important. If the writer meant to give one a higher priority, the construction would more likely be something along the lines of:

George is white. He also is married, blue-collar and owns a gun.

[AuntieEmma[$]]

For what it's worth, "white" did jump out at me, as being emphasized, in the boldface sentence. Don't know if that's because of its position (first in the adjective list) or because it was unexpected (depends on the context, but in many situations mentioning race is taboo, and even in writings where race is mentioned, "white" is often considered the default and is left unsaid -- think about descriptions in many novels, where only non-white characters are described racially), or both or maybe neither.

[drmomentum[$]]

Yes, those descriptive elements appear to be either consciously or unconsciously placed out of order.

Without the adjectives, you're saying that George is a gun-owner. So that is the most significant fact about George.

What type of gun-owner is he? "White" is a physical description, and probably ought to go closest to "gun-owner." The other two descriptors are probably interchangeable, but I would put them in the order "married, blue collar" mainly because colors are generally late in the order (according to the Royal Order of Adjectives: Determiner, Observation, Size, Shape, Age, Colour, Origin, Material, Qualifier).

I am no expert on adjectives, but I pretend to be.

-JP

[Helen_B[$]]

So, George is a huge, rotund, middleaged, white, southern, blue collar gun owner? Gotcha.

[pippadaisy[$]]

I saw the gun owner. Didn't even process that anyone mentioned he was white until I read further.

[rmthunter]

"White" did jump out at me, and I'm not sure why. Partially, of course, because it's first and that does give it importance, and I think partially because it's unexpected, and I think Em's comment about it being the default is correct, so that to mention that he's white emphasizes that fact.

"Gun-owner" is obviously the most important, but the placement of "white" tends to de-emphasize that.

Interesting to play with that a little bit:

George is a married, blue-collar, gun-owning white guy.

George is a heterosexual, working-class, Libertarian Caucasian.

Caucasian, about 5'10", wearing a baseball cap and carrying a sawed-off shotgun. Last seen heading south on I-90 in an older model pick-up truck, license number. . . .

(ho, ho.)

Bob

[pippadaisy[$]]

So I'm wondering how much of what we are seeing has to do with it being an editorial and how much has to do with our own personal biases. And I'm also wondering... does anyone have figures for minority numbers in NRA membership? Maybe white is redundant?

[cristina1]

pippadaisy said

So I'm wondering how much of what we are seeing has to do with it being an editorial and how much has to do with our own personal biases.

Apparently quite a bit from what has been posted. There was nothing offensive about the initial statement, but somehow it became something that could be.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

What hasn't been mentioned is the context of the statement. Is it an introductory paragraph in a story about the AmVets? Is it in a piece about serial killers? Is it in a piece about people opposing a local KKK chapter forming? Everyone here has contextualized it in some way, but without knowing the original context of the statement, it's hard to know if any editorializing was meant or implied.

[Prepoia[$]]

mjfrombuffalo said

What hasn't been mentioned is the context of the statement. Is it an introductory paragraph in a story about the AmVets? Is it in a piece about serial killers? Is it in a piece about people opposing a local KKK chapter forming? Everyone here has contextualized it in some way, but without knowing the original context of the statement, it's hard to know if any editorializing was meant or implied.

I agree with this assessment. I've come back numerous times to read and reread the sentence. By itself, the descriptors seem equal. However, in the context of the piece, they may have been carefully chosen to reveal or to support the writer's views.

Sandy

[rmthunter]

I don't agree. Sure, it could be from a lot of different contexts, and knowing the context would probably affect my assessment of the sentence itself, but I think the things pointed out are going to carry over regardless of context.

I think what context is going to affect is whether we (as editors) decide that description is appropriate.

Bob

[eplovejoy]

mjfrombuffalo said

What hasn't been mentioned is the context of the statement.

I left that out because I wasn't sure it is relevant. Apparently it might be.

The sentence is from a newspaper article about how people voted last Tuesday. The article includes breakdowns of voting patterns by race, marital status, economic position and gun ownership and so all four descriptions of George could be said to be relevant. The reference to George was in a portion about the NRA so his owning a gun could be said to be the most important in context. The writer claimed that putting it last emphasized it above all the others because it is the last thing people will remember reading about George, an argument that strikes me as unconvincing unless readers have memories so short they can't remember the preceeding few words.

It was the inclusion of race that sparked the most discussion at the newspaper, just as it has here. The article analyzes voting patterns among African-Americans and voters of Hispanic ancestry, but makes no reference to whites except for the identification of George. Several copy editors argued that George's race is irrelevant but one went further. She argued that it is wrong to mention it first and thereby emphasize it above everything else.

One of the questions this discussion raises for me is whether it matters who is doing the writing. Does the emphasis change if George writes:

I am a white, married, blue-collar gun owner.

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

Hmm. If I had to write a descriptive sentence about myself, I probably wouldn't think to include my race - unless I was also including a descrption of my husband, and even then maybe not.

[pippadaisy[$]]

I'm still going to go with the white probably being redundant. I don't know of many minorities who'd be referenced as gun-owners, and if they were, THAT would certainly be emphasized.

Gun owner did stick out in my mind from reading the sentence, but I do have a personal bias that may have drawn me to that descriptor.

[rmthunter]

Peter --

I think the editor who said that George's race was irrelevant wasn't paying attention. If the article focuses on African American and Latino voters, mentioning George's race is right within the context.

Bob

[cristina1]

pippadaisy said

I'm still going to go with the white probably being redundant. I don't know of many minorities who'd be referenced as gun-owners, and if they were, THAT would certainly be emphasized.

Gun owner did stick out in my mind from reading the sentence, but I do have a personal bias that may have drawn me to that descriptor.

Curious thought, so I looked it up. I dont have much time this morning in between bringing kids to school, but on this site, they quote the following figures for Texas (as of 2000.)

The Texas Poll also showed that 58 percent of white households owned guns, compared with 28 percent of black households and 23 percent of Hispanic households.

Not quite as high percentage as whites, but still significant.

I'm editing to add one more thing: The only reason I chose texas is because it was at the top of the google list :lol

[pippadaisy[$]]

LOL. I was going to say... Texas really can't be counted, can it?

I was amazed when I was working with some people from Texas at a large three-lettered computer services company back in the 90s... a lot of the women had purses with little hand-gun holsters built right in. Also, based on census data, that's not a huge number, considering that only 11% of their population is black. Hispanic gun ownership in Texas is probably more of a factor.

[cristina1]

I agree, but like I said, not much time in the mornings for anything in depth. I'm doing four things at once. OMG, I sound like a major addict.

I'll try to find the figures in NY later. I don't know many people at all who own guns, and those are hunting rifles. I know no one who owns a hand gun.

[eris esoteric]

My thought on this... and it's possible I'm being overly PC here...

Commonly, when describing one person to another person, we leave out race, if the race of all three people are the same. In many books (and I've read many, many books) by white authors, the races of the characters are usually not given, unless they are minorities. Everyone else is simply assumed to be like everyone else. In books written by minorities, however the characters races are all pointed out in some fashion.

I think it's because the underlying perception is that most of the people who will read a book will be white. And whatever race you are, you get kind of a weird feeling if halfway through the book, you discover that the charactor looks significantly different than you thought he did.

The problem with this, from a PC point of view, is that it's a subconscious form of marginalization... that assumption that most of the people reading the book are white can become a persception that ALL of the people reading the book will be white.

Which is a long winded way of saying that, in the context that you are presenting, leaving out the white part WILL STILL communicate (probably) that George is white. It will, however, be a negative connotation... that "white" is unremarkable, but that the inclusion of a black or hispanic person is unusual or strange (which translates to the black or hispanic reader that they themselves are unusual or strange).

This is of course, solely my obeservation as a life long reader. I know I feel the same dislocation when reading books written in the first person where the narrator's gender isn't immediately clear. However, if I get a chance, I'll make sure Bridgette sees this thread. She'll probably have a much more coherent opinion, being more knowledgeable in both the technicallities of writing, and political corretness.

I wish I had a link, because the best piece of evidence I ever had about this theory of mine was Robert Heinlein's character, Dr. Richard Ames, from The Cat Who Walked Through Walls. I ran across a discussion board in which someone posed the theory that the character was black. It is never mentioned specifically in the book, there is only one reference to it that I can recall (though maybe two since it's been a while). The reaction was generally shock: if the character WAS black, it should be mentioned, because that's so unusual for a science fiction hero. I'm personally of the belief that the old man was just perverse enough to write about a black man, and not have it make any difference 150 years from now that he was a black man.

[jgibson2[$]]

pippadaisy said

So I'm wondering how much of what we are seeing has to do with it being an editorial and how much has to do with our own personal biases. And I'm also wondering... does anyone have figures for minority numbers in NRA membership? Maybe white is redundant?

The NRA doesn't keep statistics on the ethnicity of their members. I went to their web site and couldn't find any information on it, so I asked.

Here's the response:

Thank you for your question. The NRA does not ask about the ethnicity of our Members nor do we keep track of that statistic. I will tell you that the NRA represents a broad cross section of America and that I personally have spoken with Members from every race, color, gender, nationality, and social background that I can think of. All are united in our common cause to protect the Second Amendment.

They're probably not the people to ask about the ethnicity of gun owners either. The photos of people I saw on their web site don't reflect minority membership, although there are a number of women and they do have women writing for all their magazines.

[pippadaisy[$]]

OMG, Judy... thank you.

I shouldn't laugh, but it sounds like a "some of my best friends are..."