We often apply the description “no action, talk only” negatively, using it to rebuke or shame those who will move only their lips but not their hands. A key theme that runs through my university education, however, is that words are powerful instruments of action. With words, we act, do things and cause changes to the real world around us. This idea, in fact, constitutes a major theory in my discipline (Linguistics) – Speech Act Theory.

Hence, words are more than just sounds or patterned ink on paper. They induce real changes and consequences in the world. To say “I do” in a specific set of circumstances (eg. before a wedding solemnizer), for example, is to commit yourself to a marriage. Even speech uttered in a more casual setting, such as saying to the hawker, “a plate of chicken rice please”, is to make a purchase request and will result in a plate of food put before you as well as an unspoken expectation on your part to pay up.

Moreover, words are conveyors of action not just between individuals, but on the societal level as well. Unsurprisingly, discourse (a more complicated term for “words”) plays an instrumental role in constituting and influencing societal attitudes and perspectives. In the module Media, Discourse and Society, I did a group research project in which my team and I analyzed the discourse employed in The Singapore’s Women’s Weekly magazine (TSWW) and how it intentionally constructs an idealized figure of the successful woman.

 

One of the TSWW issues that my group analyzed included a column titled “Great Women of Our Time Series”. That column celebrated a few top women achievers in the workplace and featured them in advisory roles, featuring their advice on appropriate ways to interact in the workplace.

While on the surface, the “Great Women of Our Time Series” column seems to celebrate victory and progress for women in the workplace, it is on a deeper level subtly defining what success means for women and constructing an ideal image of the “successful career woman”. This is clear in the specific choice of women featured in the column who, by virtue of its title, are crowned as the “great women of our times” – women who hold high, prominent positions in the workplace. The column is thus making a statement regarding what type of women are considered “great women”; it is women who fly high in the workplace who are considered to be “great women”. Hence, while the column holds up women with particular profiles to the limelight, it simultaneously downplays or undercuts the worth of women who seek success in other spheres.

Moreover, an article in the column was also titled “Succeed Like A Man, Lead Like A Woman”. Similarly, while the title of the article seeks the empowerment of women to achieve success in the traditionally male-dominated workplace, it is simultaneously benchmarking and defining success for women in male-oriented terms. That women are asked to “succeed like a man” is highly problematic. Consuming such discourse and adopting its subtexts may very well lead to a society that ties success for women to the workplace narrowly, like a straitjacket, and despises women who seek alternate forms of success, such as in the domestic sphere.

Hence, as I concluded in my group research paper,

“the construction… of such an identity, while seemingly adhering to feminist tropes, is actually… disempowering of women as it… bars them from the power to define ‘success’ in personal terms. Like any ideology, the danger of such a constructed identity of the ‘successful career woman’ lies in its subtlety and appearance as ‘common-sense’, making it difficult to notice.”

Crucially, these societal attitudes are to a large extent constructed and influenced by discourse, that is, the choice of words employed in the society’s discussion about women. Words can entrench and reinforce a particular mindset in the society, or they can radically alter and transform societal perspectives and views. When we use language, then, whether in written or oral form, we are social actors rather than mere commentators, actively shaping and reforming the real world around us with our words. That is the power of words.

This power has long been recognized and employed by advocates of social movements. In campaigning for a particular social change that they hope for but which may lack popular support or political legitimacy, social movements have frequently labeled or framed their causes as issues that concern the masses on a deeper level or that engender a more visceral threat.

In a paper that I wrote for the module Social Movements, Law and Society, I examined the strategies employed by the anti-nuclear movement in Japan. One such strategy was “framing” – the intentional labelling and association of a particular issue as part of another issue which is deeper, bigger and which evokes a stronger emotional response or appeal from the masses. In the case of the anti-nuclear rallies in Japan, for instance, anti-nuclear activists framed the issue of nuclear power as a threat to the health of children and families.

The magazine article excerpt (see full article) above mentions how protestors chanted the phrase kodomo wo mamore (‘protect our children’). Surely the activists could have chosen to frame the same issue in many different ways (in economic or political terms, for example), yet chose to frame it as an issue about the safety of children. This was because the safety of children was a deeper concern that provoked a much more intense emotional reaction from the Japanese public. As I explained in my paper, these

“innovative framing strategies… resonated with the public and rode on the wave of shock and anxiety following such accidents [like the] 1986 Chernobyl disaster… women anti-nuclear activists framed their identities as ‘concerned mothers’ who wanted to protect their family from harmful radiation, effectively linking anti-nuclear activism with family and safety concerns. This successfully triggered a wave of grassroots anti-nuclear rallies and performances supported not just by women but also their husbands and other family members.”

Notice again, from this example, the power of words in shifting societal response towards social issues.

Is “no action, talk only” bad? Perhaps. Empty talk unaccompanied by practical action seldom leads anywhere. But we must recognize that, often if not always, speech itself (or, more generally speaking, the use of language in any form) constitutes powerful action. When we speak, we are inadvertently performing actions, whether the impact of our words is experienced internally within ourselves or felt by the people around us. How much more when we employ language strategically to accomplish particular social purposes or advocate societal change? Our words can be far more than empty talk. We speak to change the world.