Having googled “faqspeak”, I am surprised to have retrieved
no hits for its use as a word. Therefore I offer it as a neologism. What do I mean by “faqspeak”? Exactly that. Well, almost.
I hereby coin "faqspeak" (pronounced 'fak-speak') to describe the phenomenon by which a speaker habitually begins each point of an exposition with a question. As a rhetorical
device, asking a question then answering it can sometimes be effective. As a
rhetorical habit, where it shapes most of an entire discourse, it not only
annoys by its repetition, but undermines the art and effect of exposition.
Effective
exposition contains an element of drama. The thesis (or protagonist) may enter in
the first scene, or be introduced after the stage is set. Subtext and subplot
artfully carry the argument along, adding nuance, color and, most important,
multiple levels of access in understanding motivation and purpose. The denouement
closes the story leaving the audience convinced it is the only way it could
have reasonably ended. The speaker established dogma with drama.
By contrast, "faqspeak" constitutes a coarse opening for a simple
assertion. By controlling the question, the speaker crudely controls the range
of response. Faqspeak sounds defensive because it is. I remember first noticing
its use in the press conferences of a bush-league Secretary of Defense trying
to explain why we should topple the regime of a dictator who did not pose an immediate
threat. He did not explain anything: he merely answered his own questions. Repeatedly.
Many catechisms have long used the FAQ format it to reinforce recitation in a pedagogical setting. Cyber-wizards in the early internet days brought
it to the mainstream in a technical support context. Somehow it morphed into a
marketing tool to push information rather than to document user-originated
inquiries and user-oriented responses. The kudzu-like spread of faqspeak found in corporate and political messaging today means to induce catechetical recitation of corporate and political agendas. We let powers that
be (or wannabe) ask our questions for us.
My challenge for myself is to eschew the temptation to
control the conversation by avoiding faqspeak. Used occasionally, it can be
effective. This article uses it exactly once. Used habitually, it reduces what
could be an eloquent description or explanation to a series of talking points.
(Do not get me started on PowerPoint presentations.) Talking points do
accommodate our short attention span, but they excuse us from the
responsibility of thinking something through to the point where we might
understand it.
Adding “faqspeak” to my own vocabulary helps me recognize it
when I hear it and label it when I use it. I intend to catch myself before
using it and to replace it with a more thoughtful (if not brief) explanation of
what I am trying to communicate. This means letting listeners ask their own
questions and answering only questions other people ask. It means waiting for others to form a response to my questions and to form a response that is not a question itself. That strikes me as a more effective, humane and
satisfying way to conduct discourse.
Where have you heard faqspeak? Does our vocabulary need this new word?
