The use of language is extremely important. There are key body language points, which people pick up on and subtext to words that is interpreted when someone speaks.
"I think, though, this is not a time to commit sociology, if I can use an expression," Harper said. "These things are serious threats, global terrorist attacks, people who have agendas of violence that are deep and abiding threats to all the values our society stands for."
I personally have never heard that expression, but I am still fairly young I suppose. However, when reading the first sentence, "I think, though, this is not a time to commit sociology, if I can use and expression." What does "commit sociology" bring to mind?
To "commit sociology..." well, I don't know about you, but if sociology is the study of societies and the behaviour of individuals or groups in society then by all means I would in fact encourage people to "commit sociology."
When I first read the quote the language that Harper used implied condemnation of the act of studying why people do what they do in society.
"Commit," is a word that people use in accordance with the law. To commit a crime, commit a felony, or commit an act that will result in police action and possible repercussions.
In the sentence structure of Harper's speech there are only two possible uses of the word. Either commit was used referring to something illegal or, after re-reading the quote, it was actually used as promising resources to something that he did not condone. A better way to put this though would have been to say, "this is not a time to commit [to] sociology." This simple, extra word inserted into the sentence changes the way the word "commit" is interpreted and would have avoided any confusion as to his meaning.
Harper's quote, though, in my opinion, simply brings up the image of everyone who is studying sociology being rounded up and put in jail. To me, I read the article from CBC News and the word "commit" popped off the page as a way of condemning the study of society.
Now obviously I know I must have misinterpreted his use of the word initially, but if this is the way I read it, I'm sure others would have understood it in this way as well?
Yet, my initial interpretation, I feel is valid, because I ask you, why is this, "not a time to commit sociology?"
The quote I read comes from an article, which also says that the Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre said, in relation to Harper's comment, "The root causes of terrorism is terrorists."
This in my opinion is extremely narrow-minded. The Boston Marathon bombings and other acts of terrorism including the attempt on VIA rail deserve to be sociologically studied. In my opinion it is important that it is studied.
The fact of the matter being, in order to stop terrorism you have to find what makes a terrorist. What was it that pushed these people to become so radical? They weren't always terrorists and understanding what makes a terrorist is important. Although this could be my left-leaning thinking that is at play. I'm not saying that punishments should be lessened or we should take pity on terrorists, I'm simply saying that to be able to know why terrorists become this way is important to try and prevent future terrorists.
The Conservatives have basically said that Justin Trudeau, the Liberal party's new leader, was wrong to say that finding the root causes of terrorism is important because as you have already read, "The root causes of terrorism is terrorists." They accused Trudeau of attempting to rationalize the bombings in Boston, when terrorism cannot be rationalized.
It's true, to most, terrorism cannot be rationalized, but to terrorists it is a rational act which is why they choose to partake in terrorist activities. So, to understand what makes a terrorist and how they have come to rationalize their acts is extremely important.
To say that terrorists are the root cause of terrorism is to say something like, "journalists are the root cause of journalism." No, the root cause of journalism is not journalists. The demand from society to be well informed and know what is going on in their society, in their community, is what drives the need for journalists; therefore, without people wanting to know about the world journalists would not exist. So, terrorists cannot be the root cause of terrorism because there is something else that is making them into terrorists.
So, why is this, "not a time to commit sociology?" Is it because the Liberals seemed to be advocating for it in their speeches and the Conservatives wish to condemn this act because the Liberals support it or do the Conservatives really believe that "terrorists are the root cause of terrorism," and there is no need to commit resources to sociological studies?
In my opinion the understanding of terrorist acts can only be possible through psychological and sociological studies. I personally feel there has to be something more than the black and white version the Conservatives seem to be spinning of terrorists being the reason for terrorism.
By studying the actual root causes we would have a better chance at figuring out why people choose to become terrorists and maybe have a chance at preventing such radicalization from any person of any religion, ideology, or set of beliefs. So, I hope people continue to "commit sociology" and help discern how and why terrorists become terrorists.
