Obfuscation

Obfuscation is a word that sounds great and deserves more use. The problem is that we live in an age of ‘transparency’. This means that everything we say and think is as clear as clear can be. Or is it?

Thinking has always been a challenge for humans. Even in ‘sophisticated’ education systems, it is not a subject which is taught. We are so close to it that, like fish that can’t see water, thinking is not something we think about. And because of this we don’t ‘see’ when the water is cloudy, which is a lot of the time.

The first problem are the neural pathways, the patterns which develop from habitual thought. We run our thoughts in ruts which over time become deeper and deeper.

The second is our use of language to construct thoughts. In English there are plenty of words but many, like obfuscation, recede from non-use. We prefer to use language that is packed with emotion rather than clarity. Or we just use completely the wrong words to obfuscate. It’s about time I gave an example and here is one used by the late Dave Allen in a monologue he performed about flying.

‘When a plane is late, it is described as delayed. Delayed, just delayed…what does that mean?’ I paraphrase but you get the thrust. It takes the sharp logic of a comedian – the fool – to cut into foolishness.

‘Oh that’s nobody’s fault then!’ we all think. ‘The plane is just delayed.’ Perhaps the captain stopped off on the way to the airport to buy his wife some flowers, or her husband that classic car magazine he likes, what’s it called? Perhaps they forgot that the plane had to be somewhere else before it arrived here and they understandably didn’t allow for that. Perhaps a flying duck hit the windscreen and took the head off the pilot. Some unimportant but entirely rational things that we don’t need to know about because we are just passengers.

Another common usage of language that is a perfect example of obfuscation, is the term ‘road accident’. My local radio keeps reporting all sorts of accidents on the road in which nobody is, apparently, to blame. Two cars just accidentally collided head on. Well that’s all right then. Accidents will happen. No, there is always blame and on the roads the apportion of blame is vital for insurance companies, highways departments, car designers, government policy makers, driving instructors and emergency services to name but a few. The emergency services spotted the the misuse of the word ‘accident’ maybe ten years ago and refer to ‘road traffic collisions’. Much clearer and with obfuscation removed.

If the police looked at their collision statistics I wonder if they find a spike during the ‘rush hour’. This is the time of day when you might expect cars are going fast, rushing to work or home. But no. The ‘rush hour’ is the time of day when traffic slows down or stops. How do foreigners understand these obfuscated English idioms?

The railways have a different approach to obfuscation for which I expect they would like some credit. But in my view, the reasons they give for ‘delays’ are so diverse and absurd that obfuscation is being achieved whilst pretending to ‘keep the customer informed’. I am sure they have a database of reasons why the train is delayed and reasons are reasonable – aren’t they?

In the summer I had to take a train to my stepson’s wedding. ‘This train is cancelled due to a fire next to the track.’ Brutal but honest, you might think. I ignored the advice to use the flame-proof buses laid on for the emergency, since I had a bicycle with me. There was another train on it’s way so I waited on the platform. When it arrived I parked myself and my bicycle on the train next to the guard. A fellow passenger asked the guard about the fire. He said he knew nothing about it. As the train pulled away he rang the driver who said he didn’t know about any fire and we all carried on to my destination. In the last year my train journeys have been ‘delayed’ by staff not turning up for work, lorries hitting bridges, aliens landing, level crossing barriers not working…and I know that what they are trying to tell me but don’t want to, is that they on strike.

One final dig then at the rail dispute. The train company want to run all trains without guards. The guards insist they are important for the safety of passengers – like knowing when there is a fire on the line. The guard on that train commented ‘I am always the last to know’ – about the fire. A comment that a local journalist would have loved to have quoted since the guards have been on strike for over a year! I happen to agree that all trains should have a guard, but the guards have failed to make a reasonable case. Perhaps they need a book of words and a course on how to think – or is that what lawyers are for? No, we in the Union of Railway Workers are much cleverererer than lawyers. We’ll just continue obfuscating under the cloak of safety. Oh really?