|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 11, 2021 14:36:54 GMT
I've no wish to offend anyone here, but if you are well rewarded for what you do, can it really be regarded as "service"?
I've read a lot about "a lifetime of service" recently, and I suppose - at stretch - a civil servant provides a service. I have a friend who for thirty years has "served" in the Royal Navy. But surely the people who mostly serve me are the people who get my food in a restaurant or the hospital porter who pushes me to the operating theatre.
Has service been hijacked to serve(!) as a euphemism for privilege?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 11, 2021 14:48:55 GMT
And I note that if one is angry about something (one-sided media coverage, for example) and young, one is passionate. But if I, as an old person (I am 68) am angry about the same thing, I am merely grumpy.
Can anyone suggest an alternative to grumpy that doesn't undermine the argument? I'm not exactly angry (that's too close to hate, and I don't hate things), but I think people sometimes behave in a rather sheep-like way, and are sometimes being fed easy clichés. I'd like to see more balance, more thought, and it makes me - what? - that not everyone seems to think that getting one's "knowledge" of "what really happened" from The Crown might be a little dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Apr 11, 2021 15:16:15 GMT
I think the uses of “service” are too many and varied to dig too deeply. “In service” was menial; civil servants can be serving at any level and so on. I think the “lifetime of service” stuff is all about taking on the odd job of supporting the Queen and doing that rather thoroughly for an unexpected length of time.
That much seems to me appropriate. Having the same anecdotes and phrases poured repeatedly at us through radio, television and newspapers, for three days so far and no end in sight, does not. Enough already.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 11, 2021 17:13:58 GMT
Best remark I heard was the Rev Richard Coles, when asked if he was a fan of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme (which is rather tricky, given it does some good work but also has "a healthy body is a healthy mind" undertones). He replied: "Well, I'm rather more C of E than D of E".
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Apr 12, 2021 0:53:07 GMT
>I suppose - at stretch - a civil servant provides a service<
Why “at a stretch”? I would have thought anyone who does anything for some other person or entity is providing a service. I think the difficulty arises from the use of “servant” to apply only to domestic servants and not to public servants and civil servants, for example.
Some people do genuinely provide a lifetime of service and I think it is worth recognising that – although it is better to do it in their lifetime, which is why we have the honours system. It is a pity the honours system is so frequently applied to routine service. Most people who merely provide routine service do not rate obituaries which is why “a lifetime of service” has become a cliché.
And, speaking of clichés, is it not amazing that no toe-rag has ever been killed? They are all much-loved members of the community who will be sadly missed.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Apr 12, 2021 9:53:44 GMT
And, speaking of clichés, is it not amazing that no toe-rag has ever been killed? They are all much-loved members of the community who will be sadly missed.I've noticed that too. Whenever a child or teenager is killed during a knife fight or while trespassing on a railway track, he or she is always described as the most wonderful being who ever existed, and never as that little git from over the road who made the neighbours' lives a living hell. Odd, that.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Apr 12, 2021 12:07:29 GMT
I forgot to say that the heraldic motto of the Prince of Wales is Ich dien which means I serve in German. It apparently dates from its use by Edward of Woodstock, the Black Prince, in the 14th century.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 12, 2021 14:47:38 GMT
Why “at a stretch”? I would have thought anyone who does anything for some other person or entity is providing a service.If I buy a magazine from a shop, are they providing me with a service (providing me with a magazine, or am I providing them with a service (providing them with money)? Surely it's just a transaction? Does there not have to be some imbalance of power for it to be a service? As for civil servants, some, maybe most, are doing a fine job. But some of them are just demanding money from me, or stopping me doing something. That's no service to me. I know they don't sign themselves "your obedient servant" any more, so I suppose they would argue that the service they provide is to society, rather than to individuals. Have I offered "a lifetime of service" to the country because I've paid my taxes for a good few decades? I don't think so, because in return I get law and order, defence, the NHS and all the rest of it. I don't mind it, but it's not service because I get something of similar value in retun. As for my friend who "served" in the Royal Navy, or anyone who has lived "a lifetime of service" - so long as they did it willingly and were well rewarded (in money, respect and status) I think it's a bit disingenuous to describe it as service - it could as well be described as a "lifetime of privilege". I'm not in fact criticising the prince, or my friend. I suspect neither of them would actually have described it as "service" other than as an idiom. My friend, certainly, would describe it as a "a very good career, and great fun" and would probably just have said he was "in" the Royal Navy for thirty-odd years. I didn't know the Duke of Edinburgh, of course, but I wonder if he though of it as a lifetime of service? I suspect he would have recognised the respect and status it gave him, and he seemed to have a pretty good time. I think it's more the media who use "a lifetime of service", and I have to wonder if it's just a meaningless platitude?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 12, 2021 16:10:20 GMT
I suppose my objection to "a lifetime of service" is that it's a way of denying that one is well-rewarded, and that rather than being regarded as fortunate, one should be seen as self-sacrificing. I have the same objection to millionaire CEOs who, when asked if they are worth their salary, say things like "I work hard for it" or or "I'm very good at what I do" or "I pay a lot in taxes and give a lot to charity", or "I provide a lot of employment". That may be so, but I was very good at what I did and I worked hard. I was well paid, and I have no complaints, but if, like the CEO of Bet365, I was paid £421 million in annual salary (plus another £48 million in dividends last year), I might feel I was rather fortunate and not just rather clever. And if I asked you to admire my self-sacrifice you might think I had a bit of cheek. I'm not saying the Duke felt like this, and I don't deny the good work he did and the sadness people who knew and liked him will feel - as with anyone who dies. My complaint is really with the media. He did a good job and was well rewarded. I buy a car and give the dealership thousands of pounds. Neither of us deserves admiration for it, it's just a transaction with which we're both pleased. Whether I got value for my money rather depends on your point of view. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56594988www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/sep/26/rich-work-harder-ceos-jack-ma
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Apr 12, 2021 16:28:40 GMT
I think it is clear that “service” means, or at least implies, various things depending on the context. A lifeboat rescuing people is described by the RNLI as being on service. A bus which is not available to carry passengers is normally said to be not in service. A help point for customers in a shop is commonly called a customer service desk. I think it is difficult to argue that a person serving me in a shop is not providing a service.
Surely, the problem with “lifetime of service” is not the word “service” but the whole phrase which seems to me to mean a level of service beyond the routine, or beyond the ordinary call of duty, and which has been provided for most of a person’s active life. It is a useful concept, is it not? How else might one suggest that without originating another cliché? It can be regarded as a compound noun of which there are many in English: band of brothers, potting shed, palliative care, washing machine and wishing well, for example, where the intended meaning is only understood by using both words together. None of these is a cliché.
Of course, the term us often used unjustifiably. But that is a different matter.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 12, 2021 19:52:39 GMT
I never know what is a noun phrase and what is a compound noun. To me, witch craft is a noun phrase, witch-craft is a compound noun, and witchcraft is a word. There is sometimes a progression over time.
But I may well be wrong. All this is from school, which was a very long time ago and may not have been right, even then!
I don't think I really disagree with you, LJH. As Dave Miller pointed out ages ago, service has a very wide variety of meanings. I think my objection, though, is the Orwellian one: words have power, and if we don't have a word for something, we can't think it.
So it dismays me when all spending of which we approve is described as investment. We may hope that education our children will pay off, but spending on schools is just spending on schools, not an investment in our future. Sometimes I want help, but I'm only ever offered support. I remarked here, I think, that no-one dies any more, they pass away. I heard a man on the TV just now remark that he was glad the shops have re-opening because "it's good for our mental health". I think he meant it's good for our mood.
And that's the problem really: I think if challenged he would have readily admitted that he did mean mood - I don't think he thought it would do much for actual mental health problems. But I can't be sure. And when someone says their granddad passed away I can't assume they are religious or actually believe in some concept of transformation or passing into a different place. Passing away is just the phrase they use for dying.
Euphemisms sometimes start as a conscious ploy by politicians or advertisers to make a word more acceptable or important/trustworthy/exciting. Effect becomes impact, woman becomes girl, girl becomes young girl, and young girl becomes very young girl. Spending becomes investment and Orwell's Ministry of Propaganda becomes the Ministry of Truth, the department responsible for starting wars is called the Ministry of Defence, an attack is a pre-emptive strike, and so on.
Ecumenisms, even when started as jokes, sometimes become adopted at the normal name for something as people forget it was a joke or a parody. It's now routine to be stood on a bus or tell someone you snuck out of the meeting. We're not quite there with retail therapy - some people still just go shopping - but when the language becomes inaccurate it becomes harder to say clearly what we mean, and sometimes that matters.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 12, 2021 20:40:25 GMT
So that's my objection to service - it can mean so many things, as LJH says, that it's very handy to use if we don't want to be clear about what we mean. "Not in operation" becomes "Not in service", a "customer help line" becomes a "customer service line", a career in the Royal Navy becomes a career serving the Royal Navy. I have no objection to a life of service if it means what it says (someone who has been in service all their life - a houseman, say) but I don't like it being used for someone who has willingly been in a well-rewarded position of power, influence, and status for most of their life, even if they did much good work, were admired by many, and would not claim for themselves a lifetime of service. It should mean that much time was spend doing what servants do. The fact it doesn't, indicates it has become an Orwellian words, used to hide meaning rather than covey it; used in the hope of generating warm emotions without too much thought.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 12, 2021 20:43:12 GMT
But I don't really mind anyway! It's an interesting discussion, but the tabloids will do what the tabloid do and we shouldn't take them too seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Apr 12, 2021 20:53:41 GMT
[...] when the language becomes inaccurate it becomes harder to say clearly what we mean, and sometimes that matters. Ye, Paul, I think Newspeak is alive and thriving. In the newspaper I worked for, one of the (many) quirky style rules was "no euphemising death". Other than in death/funeral/memoriam notices, where one need consider the bereaved's feelings, nobody passed anywhere: they plainly died. My only comment on the late Prince Philip is a wee anecdote: At a civic reception for the prince sometime in the '50s, my pater was delighted to see HRH tip some tea from cup to saucer – presumably to cool the tea, just like Pater used to do. Pater followed suit and a short time later tipped the saucer to his mouth – only to see the royal tip his back into the cup. My unsophisticated cow-cocky pater was embarrassed. (Embarrassed perhaps, but insufficiently not to tell the tale many times over.)
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Apr 12, 2021 21:10:51 GMT
In the minster church at Wimborne Minster in Dorset, UK is a memorial tablet referring to someone (I forget who) who had “entered into rest”.
|
|