Official Style: A Critique
The
question of “What is the Official Style,” has a multi-faceted answer. The irony
of the Official Style is that it was not a style implemented by any official
source. While official sources certainly use it, and to great effect, there is
no law or any direct imperative that any individual is forced to use it.
Certainly, in our youth during schooling we are taught that we should use
the Official Style, without it ever being framed as a style. We are taught that
by writing in the method of the Official Style that we sound smarter, and that
is how we will get ahead in society. This training is essential to success in
today’s society, since the Official Style is so widespread. Indeed, many people
write in the Official Style without ever realizing that they are doing so. What
then defines Official Style becomes extremely relevant, and the point of this
discussion.
There
is an entire list of descriptive features that underlie Official Style. Such as
absolutes, coordination, infinitives, prepositions, and more. These features
appear in concepts such as obfuscating the truth in political speech, being
detached and impartial on government forms, even the intent to fill space with
needless words to convey legitimacy through volume, such as in legal papers.
The reasons for these tactics are related to the strategy that the person or
person(s) writing the Official Style is implementing. In the case of the
article I am analyzing, the strategy of the Official Style use is to build
impartiality and emphasize passive voice. The document wishes to communicate
information, without taking sides. The bureaucratic nature of the work conveys
official practices and standards, and the Official Style is clearly the default
method to facilitate with that goal. This being said, there are specific
examples that highlight this goal, such as the statement regarding unjust
treatment or firing reads as follows, “In considering whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or
unreasonable, the Fair Work Commission must take into account all of the
following factors.”
After the preceding statement, this text implements
bullet points to highlight each possible aspect that needs to be considered in
order to answer the question. While these bullets are meant to be clear, and easy
enough to understand for the average reader, the tone of each point in this
segment echoes the whole. The whole work is written in the passive voice, and
strives towards impartiality. This strategy is mostly enabled by the use of
definitive bullet points, prepositions, and infinitive phrases. There is
also heavy use of coordination in order to link subjects within the same bullet
point format. These methods of implementing the Official Style are each unique
with defining characteristics. Absolute phrases such as “employees who have been demoted but the demotion did not
involve a significant reduction in their remuneration or duties and who remain
employed by the employer who demoted them,” particularly help to sell
the image of this being an unbiased and impartial work. Not interested in
taking sides in a dispute but rather being a neutral judge and setting the
policy for procedure. This voice is also passive and is by no means reacting to
moment. This text is meant for reference and review, not as an immediate
response to a particular action.
This
tone is further propagated by Prepositions such as “In other dismissals,” and Infinitives like “Eligible employees may be able to claim.” While
both of these terms are in reference for separate tactics for writing in the
Official Style, both are highly instrumental in fulfilling the strategy of
being detached from the subject matter. It is fair to say that the writer(s) of
this government text on the proper and lawful methods for terminating employees
will never have direct contact with those that are employing the text. Then
there is the very consistent use of coordination. With so many ideas that need
to be linked together within one bullet point in order to be precise, it is
important to use clear transitions. Such as laying out the specific criteria
for terminating an employee, what they have to qualify for, or have been
lacking in. Especially in a document that strives for the thin line between
clarity and impartiality. This line can be interpreted differently depending
on which side of it you are on as well. For an employer, the document can be
interpreted in a way that allows them to be rid of unwanted employees. On the
flip side it could be interpreted by differently by an employee who feels they
have been wrongfully fired. To compound these viewpoints further, there is an
interesting irony within this document, while the words on the page strive
towards being impartial, unbiased, and official, the content of the message is
inherently political and biased. While certainly not everyone will agree with
this claim, there is evidence to support it.
This
argument goes beyond just the words on the page. While the words do their best
to be passive an impartial, the policies themselves clearly affect the public
in political ways. How difficult it is to terminate an employee often boils
down to political considerations. Traditionally Republicans maintain the
conservative line that favors loose policies that favor companies, and would
enable them to more easily terminate employees. This is known as the pro
–business line and generally prefers as little government interference as
possible. At the other side of the spectrum are the Democrats that tend to be
more liberal, and are more supportive and protective of employees rather than
employers. The Democrats would be focused on policies that would make it more
difficult for companies to fire employees, and require companies to jump
through more hoops in order to avoid paying unemployment. They are not against
businesses, they just are pro-employee. For either point of view on the
subject, it is important to consider that the Official style of writing hides
these biases, and serves as a highly effective disconnect between those who set
the policies, and those that view the policies and are affected by them.
Employer, employee, judge, or even unbiased bystander, Official style is
subject to interpretation, both in its word usage and intent.
In
conclusion, to revisit the original question of what the Official Style is,
there are two answers. The first, and most boring answer is, The Official Style
is the proper method or means to convey ideas, thoughts, and emotions in
written and spoken form to another individual or individuals. The far less
politically correct answer, and probably the most accurate answer is, the
Official Style is how person A sends
a message to person B and tries to
sound as smart as they can in the process. In the case of our document of the
Proper Termination of Employees, It is a combination of these two answers. Some
aspects of the document are wordy and written to sound
Mark S
No comments:
Post a Comment