View image Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin in "The Last King of Scotland." The New York Times asks: Which Best Actor Oscar nominee is the bestest articulater: Whitaker or Peter O'Toole? (Answer: Neither.)
Senator Joseph Biden praised (or faintly damned) Senator Barack Obama last week by calling him "the first sort of mainstream African-American [presidential candidate], who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." OK, we know Jesse Jackson's record isn't exactly squeaky clean, what with the "Hymietown" and infidelity/paternity scandals and all. (I'm assuming that Biden was talking about the cleanliness of candidates' public images, not their personal hygiene.) Shirley Chisolm, Elizabeth Dole, Hillary Clinton and Carol Moseley Braun are not guys. Al Sharpton is not all that mainstream (how many people outside New York know who he is?) and -- at least when wearing a track suit -- not particularly nice-looking.
So, that leaves Obama, who is male and partly African-American. (He was born in Hawaii to a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas). He may also be all those other things Biden said, but it was the "African-American" part and the "articulate" part that got Biden in the most trouble. Obama said he didn't think Biden was making a subconscious racial slur. But as Lynette Clemetson wrote in a piece called "The Racial Politics of Speaking Well" in Sunday's New York Times: "Being articulate must surely be a baseline requirement for a former president of The Harvard Law Review.... It would be more incredible, more of a phenomenon, to borrow two more of the senator’s puzzling words, if Mr. Obama were inarticulate."
Good point. But if the former president of the Harvard Law Review cannot properly be described as "articulate," then who can? Just because somebody has achieved a certain position in life does not necessarily mean that person is articulate ("Expressing oneself easily in clear and effective language: an articulate speaker."). Clemetson notes that President Bush has also called Obama "articulate" -- which reminds me of when Bush called the late Gerald Ford "decent" and "competent." Mr. Bush went to Yale University (and is President of the United States of America) and yet he is about as articulate as Lindsay "Be Adequite" Lohan. Listen to him talk sometime. He appears to be painfully unaware of the meanings of the words he attempts to pronounce -- especially, perhaps, "decent," "competent" and "articulate." (Some Disassembly Required.) From his mouth, those words sound like insults. Given his record and the way he speaks, what indication do we have that he understands them?
Clemetson writes:
While many white people do not automatically recognize how, and how often, the word is applied, many black people can recall with clarity the numerous times it has stopped them in their tracks.I'm not sure I believe this story, and here's why: I've never, ever heard an athlete give a post-game interview in which he or she could be described as remotely "articulate" by any stretch of the imagination. Especially not football players. They're either moping or whooping it up and all they ever say is some variation on, "Our goal was to go out there and play the best game we could." Might Prof. Harris-Lacewell's boyfriend actually have been exceptional in this regard? I don't know. I'd love to see the interviews.Melissa Harris-Lacewell, professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, said her first notable encounter with the word was back in high school in Chester, Va., when she was dating the school’s star football player. In post-game interviews and news stories she started to notice that he was always referred to as articulate.
“They never said that about the white quarterback,” she said, “yet they couldn’t help but say it about my boyfriend.”
While I think it's indisputable that some people use the word "articulate" because, on some level, they are mildly surprised that some African-Americans know how to use the English language, let's not lose sight of the fact that the word does have meaning. George W. Bush is, like Obama, a politician, but he's about as far from articulate as a person can get and still claim to be able to read aloud. Condoleeza Rice is African-American (and Secretary of State), but she's not terribly articulate. Witness the way she stammered and obfuscated her way through those recent senate hearings: "Now, as to the question of escalation, I think that I don’t see it, and the president doesn’t see it, as an escalation...." Clarity is one of the qualities that defines articulateness. Rice is someone, like Bush, who parrots deliberately evasive talking-point phrases well enough, but seems lost when she goes off-script -- just not very good at communicating a thought with precision, much less eloquence. And yet, far fewer people express the desire to have a beer with her than with the President. Why is that?
Clemetson concludes with a few condescending pointers for white people on the use of the word "articulate": "Do not make it the basis of your praise for the actor Forest Whitaker if it would never cross your mind to utter it about the expressive Peter O'Toole." Bad example. "Expressive" is not necessarily the same thing as "articulate" (a drunk is surely expressive, but not often articulate), and it would never cross my mind to use the latter word to describe either of these actors.
If you've seen O'Toole interviewed on "The Daily Show" and elsewhere recently (where he does appear to have been imbibing, as is his custom), the word "articulate" would not come to mind to describe his behavior. I've interviewed Whitaker a couple of times, and it would not occur to me to put "articulate" among my top adjectives to apply to him (anybody see his Golden Globe speech?), mainly because he tends to be shy and introspective when facing the press. I'm not saying he's not smart; like a lot of actors when they're not performing, his fluency with language just did not stand out as one of his dominant attributes.
I'm reminded of Laurence Olivier's abominably extravagant honorary Oscar speech in 1979: "In the great wealth, the great firmament of your nation's generosity, this particular choice may perhaps be found by future generations as a trifle eccentric, but the mere fact of it -- the prodigal, pure, human kindness of it -- must be seen as a beautiful star in that firmament which shines upon me at this moment, dazzling me a little, but filling me with warmth and the extraordinary elation, the euphoria that happens to so many of us at the first breath of the majestic glow of a new tomorrow."
Wordy? Yes. Grandiloquent? Definitely. Articulate? Hardly. It's illuminating to discuss the ways context reveals nuances in words, but please let's not forget that words themselves do possess actual meaning and significance.
UPDATE (2/5/06): A reader points us to a blog called Language Log that adds further nuances to this story. The meaning of Biden's remarks changes, depending on where you put a comma -- and that comma seems to have been misplaced if you listen to what he actually said. I've put the comma in the right place above, now. (Plus, is anybody denying that "Obama-mania," as the press has been calling it, is, in fact, an extraordinary political phenomenon?)
Thanks, Matthew!
George W. Bush is, like Obama, a politician, but he's about as far from articulate as a person can get and still claim to be able to read.
Sorry, Jim, but this makes no sense. There's no correlation between the ability to speak well and literacy, or even intelligence. There are plenty of smart people who are horrible at public speaking.
There are plenty of substantive things you can bash Bush about; speaking skills aren't one of them.
Sean, maybe I didn't articulate it well enough: I'm saying Bush can read words, but he doesn't seem to have comprehension skills because he reads them without regard for their meaning. Articulateness requires "vivid, effective, or persuasive communication in speech or artistic performance" (one dictionary's definition). Bush ain't got it. I agree public speaking doesn't necessarily have anything to do with intelligence, and Bush is one of the most painfully infantile, least convincing public speakers I've ever heard. But even when he's not reading a script, he's inarticulate -- stringing together malapropisms, absent-minded digressions and incoherently formed thought fragments like no president since the invention of sound recording.
Jim, I think that was a pretty silly comment you made about football players -- or at least, an inarticulate one.
That's a pretty harsh comment to make. I've covered lots of football games, from high school, to college, to pro ... and your characterization is wildly unfair. Football players are no more or less articulate than any other typical subset of the population.
JE: Yes, it was silly. It was my Super Bowl Day joke.
Hey, Jim--
I fear you're splitting hairs at the electron level. Complaining when a nonwhite person is described as "articulate" is justified, because the word is often positioned as a compliment, and it shouldn't be. It describes a quality that every adult should possess. Using it in a complimentary way is akin to praising someone for being potty-trained.
Some definitions of the word:
1. uttered clearly in distinct syllables.
2. capable of speech; not speechless.
3. using language easily and fluently; having facility with words: an articulate speaker.
4. expressed, formulated, or presented with clarity and effectiveness: an articulate thought.
5. made clear, distinct, and precise in relation to other parts: an articulate form; an articulate shape; an articulate area.
6. (of ideas, form, etc.) having a meaningful relation to other parts: an articulate image.
7. having parts or distinct areas organized into a coherent or meaningful whole; unified: an articulate system of philosophy.
8. Zoology. having joints or articulations; composed of segments.
–verb (used with object)
9. to utter clearly and distinctly; pronounce with clarity.
10. Phonetics. to make the movements and adjustments of the speech organs necessary to utter (a speech sound).
11. to give clarity or distinction to: to articulate a shape; to articulate an idea.
12. Dentistry. to subject to articulation.
When you're parsing this, I get the sense that you're fixing on #7 as the essence of the word "articulate," when for most folks the word has less rarified associations -- not, "what a compelling articulation of a philosophy of life!" but rather, "Hey, that guy can speak in complete sentences! I didn't expect that!"
Certainly nobody who's been elected to the United States Senate should have that word applied to them for any reason -- particularly an African-American, and particularly in context of a remark separating Obama from all other presidential candidates of color. It's more appropriate to single someone out for being inarticulate, since presumably inarticulate (i.e., completely incomprehensible people) are in the minority in that elected body. (I'm being generous here, and talking about the ability to express oneself comprehensibly to other adults. Senators and congresspeople may be gaseous bores, but I can't imagine many of them getting to their level of influence without being able to master the subject-verb-object thing.)
Yes, in the greater scheme of things, too much has been made of Biden's remark. A lot of people are piling on just to be seen as sensitive, or to score points off Biden. But that doesn't mean it's not an insulting statement that should have been retracted and apologized for. It's insulting in two directions -- toward Obama, because of the suggestion that a brown-skinned man of his social station might not be articulate; and toward Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, eloquent public figures whose singsong speaking rhythms and often surprising word choice are redolent of black southern churches, but who are quite comprehensible if -- unlike Biden -- you don't consider middle-class, middle-American, broadcast-news-anchor English to be the only acceptable form of verbal communication.
I only have anecdotes to go on here, but I've rarely heard "articulate" used as a compliment to a white person (except maybe a southern white man of lower than middle-class origin), and there's usually a tone indicating that the person making the observation is pleasantly surprised to learn that the other person isn't a total mush-mouth.
Has anyone anywhere ever described a white English actor as "articulate"?
Matt: As I wrote: "While I think it's indisputable that some people use the word "articulate" because, on some level, they are mildly surprised that some African-Americans know how to use the English language, let's not lose sight of the fact that the word does have meaning."
Indeed, as you point out, it has multiple shades of meaning, and I don't know what Biden was thinking. But "articulate" is a good word; it expresses qualities I value: clarity, concision, coherence. ("Eloquent" is a bit more high-flown and emotionally intense than "articulate" -- not quite the same thing.) Consequently, I don't think "adequate" should be reduced to a synonym for "competent" or "average" -- as in "C-level speaker of English."
Do you honestly think most politicians (or even professional television personalities) consistently live up to any of those definitions you listed (especially 1 - 4)? I sure don't. To say someone is "articulate" IS a compliment (or should be) -- although I don't deny some people use it in a condescending, racially tinged way. I agree that in an ideal world being articulate would be like being potty trained. But look at how many prominent public figures shit all over the English language without being able to express anything clearly, concisely, or coherently. On network and cable TV alone (not to mention C-SPAN).
You make a good point about how many speakers who are associated with the traditions of the African-American churches are not viewed as articulate by many standard-English whites. But a dynamic speaker who has something to say can win over almost any audience. (At the other extreme, there's Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 -- so timid and careful they seemed like wax dummies half the time. They did not articulate their ideas very well: "I was for the war before I was against it.")
I wish I could say that I expected public speakers to be articulate -- or even competent. I used think it was to be expected, but I don't anymore. We have a president who thinks "disassemble" means "to lie" and pronounces "nuclear" as "nuculer." I can think of quite a few national politicians I would describe as inarticulate (remember Alaska's Ted Stevens, he of the Internet made of "tubes"?), and a few that I would call articulate -- Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, John McCain (though I think he's disingenuous), the late Ann Richards, and Barak Obama among them.
Maybe I am splitting hairs (or atoms), but I naturally resist blanket bans and generalizations by the Language Police, even when I think they have a specific point in some instances. I'm just trying to pull "articulate" back toward its more complimentary dictionary meanings -- representing a high standard of expression -- without denying that it can be used (knowingly or unknowingly) as a racial code word. Remember how "states' rights" came to be equated with "segregation" during the civil rights movement, because so many Southern politicians used it that way? Barry Goldwater actually voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he said he believed in states' rights. And now, all these years later, based on his record, I believe he meant what he said, even if others used the term as a euphemism for segregation. Yet I still think he was wrong to vote against it. (And, again, I have no desire to defend Biden; I just think the NYT article was vague, condescending, and used poor examples.)
I may have described Anthony Hopkins as articulate when I interviewed him for "Silence of the Lambs" -- because I remember how clearly he was able to describe what he was trying to do with the character of Hannibal Lecter. Yes, that's a surprising trait in an actor. I stopped interviewing actors years ago because I did not find many of them who had much of interest to say about what they do, beyond the studio talking points. Other than that, the filmmaker I have probably most often described as "articulate" is David Cronenberg. Few artists are able to articulate their intentions, and examine the implications of their work, as articulately as Cronenberg.
Jim, I believe that Olivier's acceptance speech was actually a big joke on the part of Olivier. Someone asked Olivier later what he meant by it, and he said he had no idea, but it sounded good. (Ebert has written about this moment.)
Here's an interesting analysis of why Biden didn't really say what he was quoted as saying:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004131.html
In a nutshell, Biden didn't say that Obama is the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" but, rather Obama is "the first mainstream African-American, who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."
The comma makes all the difference. Follow the link to truly understand why.
Certainly Clemetson has a point (and Biden's comment really does seem to be just the wrong thing to say. . .), but I'm not sure that she gets the nuances of how black speech is really understood by white folks. I have actually noticed that sometimes African-American speakers get labeled "articulate" not in spite of, but BECAUSE of they speak a noticeably black English. The echoes of the black church can really do wonders for the effectiveness of public speech. Think of Martin Luther King- perhaps the greatest orator this country has yet produced. His rhetoric was brilliant, but when it was delivered in that cadence, with that voice. . . well, if that isn't communication, I don't know what is. I think that anytime Jessie Jackson has been described as articulate, it has very little to do with anything he's saying (Jesse Jackson, despite his good intentions, has rarely said anything worth hearing), and everything to do with the music of his speech. Sometimes when white people call black people articulate, it isn't because they are surprised that black people can speak English, but because they admire the unique rhetorical power of black English. I think that in some ways, black English has a certain kind of rhetorical edge, and some of white America's use of "articulate" isn't condescending, but genuinly appreciative. Would Dave Chappel's banter be as brilliant if it was translated into "white American English"?- sure it would, but it wouldn't have the style or the force that it does now. A "white" Dave Chappell would be just as smart, but he would not be as articulate. . . not in the same way at least.
And for God's sake, as Jim pointed out, one of Barack Obama's strengths is certainly that he is very, very articulate. He seems to be able to think on his feet and to put himself across to his audience in the way that Bill Clinton could. Not everybody can do that, certainly not George W. Bush. Obama says the right things with the right nuance, and he does so with poise and intelligence. That IS a rare feat for a politician in these days of clumsy ideological pandering. If people want to call him articulate, well. . .
(Just to be clear, I don't think that Obama's power as a speaker has much to do with black English. His background, and his rhetorical strategies, are very different from Jessie Jackson's.)
You know, I saw Peter O' Toole's interview on The Daily Show and remember being very surprised because he didn't seem capable of saying very much. Certainly I wouldn't have called him articulate.
Then I heard an interview with him on NPR with Teri Gross and it was like a different man. He had a lot of stories to tell and thoughtful things to say and if he wasn't an orator of the first order, I would say he was articulate enough.
I tend to think now that he simply wasn't sure how to deal with The Daily Show's atmosphere and format. Jon Stewart, though I love the man dearly, is not one of the country's great interviewers, and I think he has a tendency to interrupt and go off on tangents that Peter O' Toole probably isn't used to in an interview. Give Lawrence of Arabia some room to breathe, though, and he'll engage you as well as anyone.
Thanh: I too saw that Daily Show episode where O'Toole was charmingly drunk, and later listened to the NPR interview where he was charmingly retrospective about Lawrence of Arabia.
I wondered why he seemed far more articulate on the radio... until Teri said, "That was from my 1993 interview with Peter O'Toole."
He was elderly 14 years ago. Now he's in some advanced stage of life, animated by a perverse will to live to tell another day's anecdotes and have a few more glasses of wine. Worse role models exist.
Joe Biden is not a bad guy. His loose and poorly-crafted Obama praise sets him miles ahead of Hillary Clinton's pure, mean distaste for an honest fight.
Certainly Peter O'Toole, Forest Whitaker, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama are articulate - as a prerequisite for their careers. To waste time on that lukewarm and/or racially loaded praise (which seems more natural when applied to a gifted child) is odd.
Hope I've articulated myself.
While it is true that politicians are expected to be articulate, various levels of articulateness do exist, and calling someone articulate probably just commends them to one of the higher levels. In any case, the next time I think someone speaks well, I'll just call them eloquent.
I'm kind of confused by this whole discussion. I thought the problem was with the word "clean". Maybe I'm from a different world but I've always thought of articulateness as a commendable and rapidly declining characteristic. And I'm sure I have heard it applied to Clinton among other white politicians. The word I have associated with condescension towards African-Americans, women, old people, physically disabled, etc. is "bright". That said, the comment was ill-considered. As for Secretary Rice, I would give her the benefit of the doubt if given reasonable strategies to expound on. Staying "on message" in the current environment is an acrobatic act more physical than verbal.
Clearly this whole thing has been politicized and blown out of proportion, but really I think that part of the problem that people might have here is not what is said, but rather who is saying it.
Bill Cosby is an extraordinaily articulate black gentleman who has been known to lament about the lack of articulateness in the black population of America in general, and I could easily imagine him endorsing Obama with the word 'articulate' as well. If he did so, would there be this kind of controversy?
By the way, I believe in 'degrees of articulateness' as it were, and suggest perhaps that Biden was not trying to say that Obama was articulate on some kind of absolute scale of being either articulate or not, but rather being more articulate than the average person, or perhaps even the average politician. In other words, a simple compliment that might be appropriately applied to a politician, even a black politician who was elected head of the Harvard Law Review.
I can only think of Chris Rock when discussing how certain white people talk about Colin Powell:
"He speaks so well. He's so well spoken. He speaks so well. 'Speaks so well' is not a compliment!!! 'Speaks so well' is something you say about retarded people who can talk!"
JE: I might agree if we didn't have a President in the White House and so many politicians in Congress who speak so poorly. It's an embarrassment to the whole nation. If "articulate" is no longer a compliment, and "retarded" is considered the default, I don't know why any of us bother writing and speaking and trying to express ourselves clearly at all. We can just settle for Bush instead of Obama. As for Colin Powell, I never thought he spoke particularly well. Especially when he was lying about Iraq.
Nice post, but I believe you continue to miss the underlying point by some folks who do not consider articulate as high praise. I do not see it as them saying "retarded" is the default, but that there is a subconscious lowering of expectations that some people have in their minds about black people (and football players, for that matter). And such nuances are mostly harmless, yet are very evident and noticeable to those who have been in those shoes and described as such.