WHAT IS RUSSELL CONJUGATION?

Russell Conjugation is when someone chooses different words to describe something, depending on how favorable they want to be to the thing they are describing.

It is a form of “spin”, or emotive/emotional conjugation, which is used to convey a fact in a way that also conveys the speaker’s opinion of that fact.

HOW IS A RUSSELL CONJUGATION CONSTRUCTED?

The original Russell Conjugation format looks like this:

I X, you Y, they Z.

Where X is a word choice that paints the speaker in a positive light, Y is somewhat less generous to you, and Z paints the other person in a negative light.

You can call these positivemild, or negative Russell Conjugates.

The key to understanding Russell Conjugation is that the exact behavior described in each of these examples is identical. But the words used to describe each behavior differ, depending on how the speaker wants his or her audience to interpret them.

Examples of Russell Conjugation:

  • stand up for myself, you won’t take no for an answer, she always needs to get her way.
  • I am detail oriented, you don’t let anything past you, he is a nitpicker.
  • I am thorough, you could benefit from streamlining your writing, they are a long-winded bore.

Russell Conjugations don’t always have to follow the “I, you, they” formula either. In fact, you’re more likely to encounter them in more subtle ways:

  • A politician you support reconsidered the matter in light of new evidence, but the politician you don’t support flip-flopped.
  • You negotiated boldly, but your coworker wasn’t being a team player.
  • Your own child is self-assured, but the neighbor’s son is a brat.

If it seems slightly dishonest or hypocritical, it is! But if you keep an eye out for it, you may even catch yourself using Russell Conjugations from time to time. It’s human nature to subtly support the people we identify with.

WHAT MAKES RUSSELL CONJUGATION DIFFERENT FROM OTHER GRAMMATICAL CONJUGATIONS

Most other types of grammatical conjugation are used to clarify the meaning of a statement. One of the things that makes the English language so great is how rich it is with words, all having their own connotation and nuance.

But instead of enhancing language to communicate more clearly, people use Russell Conjugation to add bias to the facts of a situation. Usually in a way they hope will influence the audience to interpret the facts their way.

WHY YOU SHOULD CARE

It’s useful to be able to identify Russell Conjugation because:

  1. It can be used to manipulate you or the people you care about, and
  2. It will give you the ability to identify bias in news, writing, and conversation.

When you’re reading or hearing someone speak, you can pause and ask yourself “am I forming my opinion based on the facts of this situation, or on the opinion of the writer/speaker?”

REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES OF RUSSELL CONJUGATION

You don’t have to look further than the front page of mainstream news outlets to see Russell Conjugation in action. Here’s an example from the New York Times home page in May of 2021:

Note how the paper describes the conflict as “civil unrest”. Next to the article is a photograph of a huge explosion going off in the middle of a city.

Whatever the standard definition of “civil unrest” is, it’s likely gone past that point once buildings start exploding. Yet the Times chose to call it “civil unrest” as opposed to “armed conflict”, which would be more accurate. “Civil unrest” would be appropriate to describe a protest which has gone off the rails, not huge explosions going off in the middle of a city.

The use of the term “civil unrest” seems to imply that the conflict is less serious than what appears to be actually happening.

Here’s another one from Fox News, also from May of 2021:

Notice how Fox portrays immigration as a “crisis”, and the flow of migrants as a “surge” which is “swelling”.

The headline does not describe the events impartially. It doesn’t provide any numbers or attempt to let the reader decide whether it’s a problem. Instead, the language used makes the implied assumption is that immigration is a problem.

BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE HISTORY OF THE TERM

While the practice has probably been around as long as language, it became known as “Russell’s conjugation” after philosopher Bertrand Russell explained the concept in detail in a 1948 episode of the BBC Radio show The Brains Trust.

Bertrand Russell, who Russell Conjugation is named after
Bertrand Russell

Russel used the following examples to describe the phenomenon:

  • I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool.
  • I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing.
  • I have reconsidered the matter, you have changed your mind, he has gone back on his word.

MODERN USAGE

More recently, Eric Weinstein has given popularity to Russell Conjugations. He uses them to identify and critique modern politicized speech:

Weinstein’s tweet illustrates that the common term “political correctness” is actually a negative Russell Conjugate of the term “respectful speech”. They both mean the same thing. But to call a statement “politically correct” is to cast doubts on the motives of the speaker. It implies they are using certain language for political approval, instead of out of respect for another person or group.

If you understand this, you can use it to reframe any debates you may have about political correctness by referring to it as “respectful speech.” After all, it’s hard to imagine someone arguing against being respectful.

CONCLUSION

Now that you know what you need to know about Russell Conjugation, you’ll be able to spot it in the wild, and maybe in yourself. It should help you take the emotion out of the fact-finding process, and understand the world a little more clearly.

I help companies get started with SEO. Besides that, I make little movies, run, ski, and make entry-level attempts at surfing.

Read More:

  • 2017 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC TERM OR CONCEPT OUGHT TO BE MORE WIDELY KNOWN?
  • Emerson Green
    • In the 1990s, pollster Frank Luntz demonstrated that Russell Conjugations have a significant effect on belief-formation. Eric Weinstein, describing Luntz’s research, writes “many if not most people form their opinions based solely on whatever Russell conjugation is presented to them and not on the underlying facts.” Luntz is responsible for popularizing the use of “death tax” over “inheritance tax” or “estate tax” in conservative messaging. As Weinstein reports, “the very same person will oppose a ‘death tax’ while having supported an ‘estate tax’ seconds earlier even though these taxes are two descriptions of the exact same underlying object.” One can be led to support a policy that they had opposed seconds earlier simply by using a different Russell Conjugation. The underlying reality doesn’t have to change in order to change how people feel about that underlying reality.
    • Most of this nudging is unconscious. This means that masses of people can be influenced dramatically without many of them taking notice! Russell Conjugations change the game of objectivity — one cannot be an objective source of information without recognizing their power. One can provide factually accurate information, and still not quite attain a dispassionately objective or unbiased ideal.
    • There are obvious implications here for anyone who’s interested in being a skeptic. Anyone who’s not aware of Russell Conjugations is an easier target for manipulation. It’s an empirical fact that human beings can be swayed to like or dislike the same idea based on subtle differences in vocabulary. Any one of us can be presented with two factually synonymous statements in different Russell Conjugations and walk away with entirely different impressions.
    • The interests of the parties involved tend to determine their usage of Russell Conjugations. In fact, you can often reverse engineer interests based on how a message is constructed. This is obviously consequential in the realm of media, PR, journalism, and politics; but this idea applies to all language. The use of Russell Conjugations isn’t limited to those with a platform, but extends to all human beings — how we think of each other and ourselves, how we communicate with others, and how we navigate the social landscape.

Enantiodromia

Enantiodromia (Ancient Greekἐνάντιοςromanizedenantios – opposite and δρόμος, dromos – running course) is a principle introduced in the West by psychiatrist Carl Jung. In Psychological Types, Jung defines enantiodromia as “the emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time. This characteristic phenomenon practically always occurs when an extreme, one-sided tendency dominates conscious life; in time an equally powerful counterposition is built up which first inhibits the conscious performance and subsequently breaks through the conscious control.”[1] It is similar to the principle of equilibrium in the natural world, in that any extreme is opposed by the system in order to restore balance. When things get to their extreme, they turn into their opposite. However, in Jungian terms, a thing psychically transmogrifies into its shadow opposite, in the repression of psychic forces that are thereby cathected into something powerful and threatening. This principle was explicitly understood and discussed in the principles of traditional Chinese religion – as in Taoism and yin-yang. A central premise of the I Ching is that yang lines become yin when they have reached their extreme, and vice versa. [2]

Overview[edit]

The word “enantiodromia” was apparently coined by Stobaeus[2] but the concept is implied also in Heraclitus‘s writings. In fr. 126, for example, Heraclitus says “cold things warm, warm things cool, wet things dry and parched things get wet.”[3] It also seems implicit in other of his sayings, like “war is father of all, king of all” (fr. 53), “they do not know that the differing/opposed thing agrees with itself; harmony is reflexive (παλίντροπος palintropos, used of a compound bow, or “in reflexive tension”), like the bow and the lyre” (fr. 51). In these passages and others the idea of the coincidence of opposites is clearly articulated in Heraclitus’ characteristic riddling style, as well as the dynamic motion back and forth between the two, generated especially by opposition and conflict.

Jung himself wrote: “Old Heraclitus, who was indeed a very great sage, discovered the most marvellous of all psychological laws: the regulative function of opposites. He called it enantiodromia, a running contrariwise, by which he meant that sooner or later everything runs into its opposite.”[4]

Roughly a generation later, Plato in the Phaedo will articulate the principle clearly: “Everything arises in this way, opposites from their opposites.” (sect. 71a).[5]

Since Jung’s modern recognition of it many centuries later, it has been actively portrayed in modern culture. For example, it has been applied to the subject of the film The Lives of Others, to show how one devoted to a communist regime breaks through his loyalty and emerges a humanist.

In particular, Jung used the term to refer to the unconscious acting against the wishes of the conscious mind, updating the Greek concept of akrasia in modern psychological terms. (Aspects of the Masculine, chapter 7, paragraph 294).

Enantiodromia. Literally, “running counter to,” referring to the emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time. This characteristic phenomenon practically always occurs when an extreme, one-sided tendency dominates conscious life; in time an equally powerful counterposition is built up, which first inhibits the conscious performance and subsequently breaks through the conscious control. (“Definitions,” ibid., par. 709)

Enantiodromia is typically experienced in conjunction with symptoms associated with acute neurosis, and often foreshadows a rebirth of the personality.

The grand plan on which the unconscious life of the psyche is constructed is so inaccessible to our understanding that we can never know what evil may not be necessary in order to produce good by enantiodromia, and what good may very possibly lead to evil. (“The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairytales”, Collected Works 9i, par. 397)

Enantiodromia also refers to the process whereby one seeks out and embraces an opposing quality from within, internalizing it in a way that results in individual wholeness. This process is the crux of Jung’s notion called the “path of individuation.” One must incorporate an opposing archetype into their psyche to obtain a state of internal ‘completion.’

Stephanie Kelton: ‘They’re going to have massive deficits. And it’s fine’

Kelton is to modern monetary theory what Milton Friedman was to American conservatives for a half century — conversational, fierce, relentless. She belongs to a group of academics who emphasise the role of banking and finance in the economy. In 2008, when the Queen asked at the London School of Economics why no economists had seen a global financial crisis coming, Kelton thought, “Wait a minute, you know, not all of us.”

.. Minsky, her academic grandfather, died in 1996, but his work enjoyed a renaissance after the global financial crisis. He had ways to explain why investments naturally get riskier when times are good. And he was unafraid to pick at what economists call, with some trepidation, “the money question”.

.. Kelton and her clan, with considerable support from historians and anthropologists, believe that money started out not as barter, but as debts. People tracked debts on sticks or tablets, and then began to trade the sticks. Empires, too, decided that their subjects owed them the obligation of taxes, and paid their own subjects in credits — the same ones they accepted to pay off the taxes.

The history of money matters, she argues, because if you see money as inherently a credit, one that states have always created at will, you have licence to think about what a state might do with the money it creates now. When a government spends without taxing, it doesn’t have to be committing a sin. It could be filling a void.

I have always wondered why Kelton ties modern monetary theory explicitly to the policy of a federal jobs guarantee — a minimum pay cheque, for anyone who wants one. “It’s all in Minsky,” she says. A job guarantee is an “automatic stabiliser”, she explains. It stabilises growth by pushing money into the economy during a downturn in the most straightforward way: as firms cut staff, people still have a salary to spend.

“Even now, in this environment where you don’t have actual work for many people to do because you want them sheltering in place, you could define their job as ‘stay home and help us flatten the curve’,” she says. “‘We’re going to pay you to help us save lives by staying home.’ So that job guarantee, even if we had it in place today, could absorb people, restore income with no time limit.”

.. She has taken from this work some measure of empathy for what members of Congress have to do. “I don’t think politicians spend a lot of time thinking, ‘Gee, I wonder if I understand money,’” she says. Instead, they reach for clear words that voters understand: the language of personal finance.

Get your fiscal house in order,” she says. “Belt-tightening. Tough choices. Living within your means.” When politicians use these phrases, even if they don’t know it, they are choosing a theory of money: the Robinson and Crusoe story. Governments become just another household, borrowing shells like Robinson, and face what economists call an “intertemporal budget constraint”: money borrowed now must be paid back later.

“I think that the Democratic party is not as comfortable with the idea of utilising the budget to deliver on their goals as the Republicans are,” she says. “Why not kind of play Santa Claus? Right? I mean, the Republicans did.”

.. When she still travelled to give talks, Kelton would try to use the language of money circling around an economy, rather than in and out of a house. “I always say capitalism runs on sales,” she says. “One person’s spending is another person’s income, right? And every dollar that’s taxed away from me is a dollar that I don’t have, I can’t spend and some business here in the US can’t capture.”  Anyone who saves, in this language, is draining money out of circulation. Paying down government debt, she argues, isn’t a virtue. It’s a leak. It’s how money leaves the economy. “It’s a lost sale,” she says. Who could want that?