The peeve in question is the word "should," or rather its connotations. It has its place, I'm sure; save for those whose sole purpose is hatred, most words do. Given this tongue's plentiful synonyms, however, few terms have cause to crop up as often as "should." At first glance, this doesn't seem much of an issue. I'm not only a self-admitted grammar cop, but also a proud style vigilante,* but since I haven't quite lost touch with reality, the fact that not everyone has any requirement whatsoever to constantly consult their mental thesaurus remains firmly rooted in my mind.
The thing about all these synonyms, though, is that - as I've mentioned previously - they all have connotations, meaning that each serves a slightly different function, and "should" is one of those slightly nebulous ones whose common thread is that, unlike "need," "ought," or "want," it implies no concrete, motivational force for the person in question to perform whatever the deed might happen to be. The only inherent impact that comes with it is guilt. It's a passive-aggressive word; it's a word people use to make the person about whom it's being used, be this the speaker/writer or someone else, feel bad.
If you need to do something, then there's an urgent, logical reason for doing so and measurable negative consequences for not doing so. Sometimes it's duty, sometimes it's finance, sometimes it's efficiency, but "need" has definite and motivational connotations. "Ought," being less urgent than "need," is a bit iffier; "want," on the other hand, directly says that the deed, or its result, is desirable - it offers not negative consequence, but positive reward, for performance.
"Should," conversely, sits there like a nagging Catholic mother, making you feel like crap for not doing ________ but protesting melodramatically when you offer to do so that no, really, there's no rush, don't worry about it, she can handle the prematurely greying hair and the ulcers will just teach her to endure pain with fortitude.
Just as the nagging Catholic mum is not inherently a bad parent - she may actually be really self-sacrificing, she might love her kids deeply no matter what and have a fantastic sense of humour - "should" doesn't need to be eradicated from the English language or anything. There really are situations where other words don't suffice; for example, if ________ doesn't need to be accomplished right now, or on any specific deadline, but things will go better if it gets done than if it doesn't. However, much like passive-aggression, it's a tool to be used very, very selectively lest you wind up just making people (yourself included) feel awful for no reason.
It's one of those "they say" things, you know? Where the smart-aleck will ask "who's they?" and nobody can say because "they" are a nebulous social construct which pretty much everyone has internalised? They serve a purpose; They reinforce those un-legally-enforceable little social contract things. However, They are also pretty set in their ways and can be overly restrictive, and their favorite word is "should." The word triggers guilt regardless of logic, allowing enforcement of norms and ideals which would cause no real harm in falling out of vogue. It says you shouldn't be angry, instead of you need to not be a jerk. It says you should call your grandma, not you have a duty to call your grandma, or you want to call your grandma. It just kind of...sits there, oozing negative judgement.
Perhaps it's simply my word-hipster tendencies showing, but it would thrill me if "should" got a bit less ubiquitous. There are enough things to feel genuinely crappy about, and on the other hands enough joy and wonder in the world, that needless guilt really should become a thing of the past.
*I'd make a terrible superhero. This is fine with me. Superheroes are silly (at least according to Almighty Cat, arbiter of taste. Have I mentioned I'm a bit bossy?)
No comments:
Post a Comment