Words, Phrasing, and Respect

This is how I felt this weekend trying to teach middle schoolers parli pro for the first time.

The relationship between how indirect and unnecessarily long a statement is phrased and respect is explored in Pinker's piece, Words Don't Mean What They Mean. "Indirect speech has a long history in diplomacy," especially in the UN. This can be seen even in Model UN, through the concept of parliamentary procedure (parli pro).When a delegate (representative of a country) wants to speak, whether that be to ask a question, state a point, or make a speech, they have to request so using the special phrasing of parli pro.

For example if they want to move into a different mode of debate, they must ask to "motion" to do so. If they want to request something personal such as more paper or to be added to the speaker's list, the delegate must first say "point of personal privilege." Or, if a delegate wants to question the current speaker, they have to say "point of inquiry to the speaker." If that isn't unnecessary enough, to further distance the requests, the delegate cannot even directly address a speaker. All questions must be asked through the committee's overseer, or the chair. So, the delegate would first state "point of inquiry to the speaker" to the chair, to which the chair grants permission by saying "on inquiry." After the delegate states his or her question the standing speaker can only give one response. There can be no interruptions from either party-even if the speaker needs clarification on the question. "Point of clarification" is asked to the chair if the speaker needs clarification, to which the chair has to tell the delegate to clarify his or her question, despite him or her obviously having heard that the speaker needs clarification.

All of these extra formal and flowery words and procedure are used in the UN to establish a system of authority and high reputation. An institution built on such a rigid set of rules solely for speaking can only demand respect. Delegates from different countries may get out of hand considering the vast range of political policy practiced around the world. This is why all debate is done through the chair, acting as a mediator despite how unnecessary the statements may be.
I think the use of parli pro is partly still upheld to try and minimize backlash or distract from how little is effectively solved in the UN. In the example Pinker gives himself, the Security Council's "famous" Resolution 242 has ambiguous wording. The "territories"it refers to is never defined, thus the "Israeli-Arab conflict remains unsolved, to put it mildly." Crafting the image of an organized and structured regulatory body offered the confidence the world needs.


enjoy these memes

innuendo

hahahahahaha