Fodder: using language

I attend a discussion group in our town, called `Beyond Labels.` Last week we decided to talk about the problems that the bankruptcy of Detroit representes. The post describing the topic was titled:

>“State and Local Entitlements”

The use of the term "entitlements" seemed to represent a particular point of view. So I noted that in my post to the group:

I’ve been reading some things that have made me sensitive to the way that language is used in discussion–including, but not limited, to the discussions that we have.

For example the topic of this post could be titled, as it is now:
“State and Local Entitlements”
or using language elsewhere in the post:
“State and Local Employee Benefits”
or
“State and Local Obligations”

Does it make a difference? Maybe it’s just me, but I think it does. Enough that I went back to earlier posts to see if it was part of a pattern, or an exception. My judgement (and I am happy to say so) is that this is an exception. I think Scott has been diligent about using neutral language in the posts as he is diligent in our meetings to make sure that we hear all viewpoints–even ones not represented in our group.

Still it raises questions.

At one extreme: am I being oversensitive to the language? That’s the case if no one else sees this, and that would be interesting for me to know.

At another: Is Scott being undersensitive? That would be the case if he’s the only person in the group who did not see the term as significant. That would be interesting to me, and I expect to Scott as well because of the care he takes to keep things “beyond labels”.

In the middle there might be some people who come down firmly on either side (some see “entitlement” as labelling the issue, in some way, and some are absolutely sure it’s a neutral term) and some who say, “Well, I didn’t see that, but now that you mention it….yes.”

It raises the question: when are we labelling, and when not.

Might be a topic for another time.