Magic word 21/24/2024 “But while we spend a lot of time thinking about the general idea of what we want to say, we think a lot less about the individual words that we use. “Everything we do involves language,” says Berger. Magic Words: What to Say to Get Your Way (HarperBusiness) explains how using the right words at the right time can deepen your influence, improve how others comprehend what you have to say, and make it more likely that they will do what you want. ![]() It turns out simple changes like these increase our influence, lead us to be perceived more favorably, and help us reach better solutions, according to a new book by Wharton professor Jonah Berger. The next time you were stuck on a tough problem, you thought about what you “could” do, rather than what you “should” do.The next time you were trying to persuade someone, you asked for advice.Rather than asking for “help,” you asked someone to be a “helper”.2023 | Reading List Magic Words: What to Say to Get Your Way.Blended Learning Solutions for Organizations.Featured Programs for Senior Executives.Certificate of Professional Development.I conclude by expressing skepticism about this proposition. If the anti-balkanization view can be reconciled with our practices, it is because racial labels are genuinely exceptional-because, in light of our history, they really do have negative magic power. I argue that the "anti-balkanization" view, by transforming racial labels as a source of taboo, clashes with functionalist interpretation. The Constitution does not necessarily frown on laws that pursue race-related objectives, but it does frown on the use of racial labels to further those objectives. ![]() From the other view-the "anti-balkanization" view-racial labels are intrinsically problematic. From one view-the "color-blindness" view-all race-conscious lawmaking is suspect, and the presence of racial labels is troubling simply because it evinces race-consciousness. Drawing on Reva Siegel’s work, I argue that the Court’s aversion to racial labels is divisible into two conceptually distinct views. When confronting race equality cases, the Court does ascribe magical power to labels, but it is a destructive kind of magical power: laws that employ racial labels are ipso facto suspect, no matter their operation or underlying purpose. There, the focus is often on labels, not function, because the labels in question-racial categories-are understood to work freestanding harm. The second exception to functionalism-a real one, though not necessarily a wise one-is a specific doctrinal setting: race equality jurisprudence. The existence of clear statement rules-that they are necessary in the first instance-suggests that when judges are left to their own devices, they focus on function, not labels. And in that sense, although clear statement rules call for label-formalism, they actually underscore the primacy of functionalism. Clear statement rules are thus designed to shut down the interpretive enterprise. ![]() By imposing this requirement, clear statement rules tether interpretation to labels: they disable courts from looking beyond the words that drafters use. ![]() In some domains, the Court has held that drafters-be they legislative bodies drafting statutes, or private parties drafting contracts-must use precise language when directing outcomes of an especially momentous or disruptive nature. The faux exception is the use of clear statement rules. The second is a genuine exception, though very possibly a lamentable one. One is a faux exception-an exception to functionalism that actually reinforces its primacy. The Article’s second goal is to explore two exceptions to this norm. While judicial opinions do occasionally employ the rhetoric of label-formalism, we are all functionalists at heart. On reflection, though, the rift turns out to be something of a mirage. Reading a case like NFIB, it would be easy to conclude that the tension between labels and function reflects a deep rift in our legal order. The first is to demonstrate the prominence of functionalism in the interpretive practices of the Supreme Court. Broadly speaking, this Article has two goals.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |