Perception is how we see the world, how we understand it, how we explain it –– but it’s also how we create our world. In Steve Mentz’s “Deterritorializing Preface” for Ocean, he calls for the reader to adapt their territorializing perceptions with adjusting the language we use. Mentz offers seven words to adjust, one I found particularly interesting was flow instead of progress. Mentz states, “thinking in terms of cyclical flows rather than linear progress makes historical narratives messier, more confusing, and less familiar. These are good things” (xvi). I find with changing language to flow there is less emphasis on an outcome than progress, reframing expectations and allowing for developments outside of the perimeters of anticipated progress.
Here’s why I think it matters, words carry weight and word choice frames perception. How we perceive the world is limited within the words we choose. If the attributes of a word are rigid we will accept what is being described as being rigid and incapable of flexibility. This might and often is not true, but the language and habit of that language limits the approach and the ability to change it.
For example, in the Westerner perception a term that is used often when describing non-white people is “minority”. This frames the Western perception (and dare I say myth) of a white majority. While it may be true in some areas it is not an encompassing truth and should not be passed off as one. Adding to that in our political and cultural understanding a majority is the “leading” group, this sets a dangerous precedent that influences behavior and opinions. What of instead of minority we used the term global majority? The frame of reference changes when considering the entirety of the planet and not just one corner or current of it.
As Mentz points out with his word adjustment, it changes the narrative. In the context of a minority and majority, understanding humans only inhabit a small portion or minority of the planet it reframes our perception of humans’ place on it. This awareness and could influence the decisions we make as a territorial minority to the seascape. As we could breach into uncharted waters that reframe our approach and attitudes, perhaps there will be more caution and discernment. Perhaps there will not be one understanding but an acceptance of how we are all in common water. Maybe then we can create our world not in the rigidity of territories and borders, but in the flow of the environment we exist in.
Great post– you understand the reading and its importance. You smartly write, “What of instead of minority we used the term global majority? The frame of reference changes when considering the entirety of the planet and not just one corner or current of it.” Great So WHAT: “As Mentz points out it with his word adjustment, it changes the narrative.”
MYTH OF WHITE MAJORITY🫰🫰🫰🫰🫰🫰 Say it!!!!
Makes me think of how, despite the fact that the *global majority* of living species diversity is prokaryotes! Even within animals the vast majority is invertebrates! Yet these organisms are decentralized– Animalia, and Vertebrates, are “leading” groups.
To align this better with our class- the majority of the planet is ocean, the majority of animal biomass is aquatic. And yet we view these environments as ‘secondary’…