The Power of Words and “Self-Fulfilling Prophecy”

In prior posts I’ve touched on the enduring impact of Malcom X’s philosophies and teachings on people and culture. There’s a part of his philosophy that has been recurring in my life and thoughts lately, and when I saw a piece CBS News Sunday Morning ran about him this morning, it felt like the keyboard started beckoning me to come write about it.

The part of the piece that stood out for me was a portion that showed a clip of his infamous 1964 interview with Mike Wallace on CBS. That interview is probably most known for being the interview in which Malcom publicly spoke out against the Nation of Islam, and its leader, Elijah Muhammad. Many believe this is the interview that put the metaphorical nail in Malcom’s coffin. True or not, he was murdered just 7 months later.

However, the portion played on CBS News Sunday Morning was a comment he made about reacting to oppression. What he was saying, in essence, is that throughout history oppressed peoples have reacted to oppression in a similar way. That way is usually with an emotionally charged aggression that has resulted from the frustration that built up over the period in which they were oppressed. These reactions are usually not well-planned actions; in fact, they’re often opposed by many and are often viewed as indecent, offensive, or maybe even criminal. One could sum up the gist of the concept he was conveying in a word with which most of us should be at least fairly familiar: rebellion.

It resonated with me somewhat differently on Sunday, however. This is probably because for various reasons, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the power of words, and the concept of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Specifically, as it relates to the power of words, what I’ve thought a lot about is how the entity or entities in power, which usually have the ability to control and shape the information infrastructure, have a tremendous amount of influence over how actions can be defined with words. By extension, this also shapes the perception of the actions being taken by a given party or parties. If the entities in power define certain actions taken by a particular group of people in words with positive connotations, those actions will be viewed positively by most. This, of course, is also true conversely, and as that depiction or description perpetuates and time passes, the shaped perception of the actions or reactions becomes the reality of those matters. More often than not, they become history, and we come to know these depictions and descriptions as the facts of those matters and how those particular incidents or events actually played out or took place.

We’ll get back to that stream of thought, though. Now on to self-fulfilling prophecy. When prompted, Gemini says when “people shape their actions and beliefs based on what others expect of them, it can be seen as a form of self-fulfilling prophecy or social dysmorphia. This happens when a person’s behavior and self-perception are influenced by the social environment and the expectations placed upon them. The idea is that if people are told they are a certain way, they may internalize that label and begin to act in accordance with it, even if it wasn’t initially their true self.”

This is a concept that’s come to mind for me quite often recently for various reasons that would be a separate post unto themselves. While processing these thoughts, however, several conversations I’ve had in the past replayed in my mind. I recalled several instances of people saying to me in various conversations, in essence, if said party was going to insist on viewing me a certain way, I figured I may as well go ahead and live out that perception. I can even relate this to my own personal past. I’ve had that very thought process and acted accordingly.

Typically, it’s easier to be what people expect, suspect, or want you to be. It’s more difficult to prove otherwise or try to dispel assumptions or prejudgments that are already being cast upon you or a related party or matter.

Malcom X was making his statement about how oppressed people react to oppression in response to Mike Wallace asking him if he thought violence was a legitimate response to the feeling or reality of being oppressed. When Mike Wallace responds to Malcom’s statement with the idea that, basically, most people feel that the feeling of oppression felt by Black people of the time is legitimate, but “they are also of the opinion that no good can come of violence,” Malcom responds with the analogy of the powder keg.

In the analogy, Malcom explains, in essence, that if you are aware of a powder keg being in your vicinity or within your proximity, you must do one of two things. You must either remove the powder keg all together or remove the circumstances that allowed it to form or be an explosive. Doing anything to the contrary would be illogical. You could only then be waiting for the powder keg to explode as it should or be expecting it to not function as intended.

Malcolm argued that, if perceived objectively, a reaction to injustice in any form would not be viewed as violence, but as a justifiable defensive reaction. From Wallace’s tone and line of questioning, it’s fairly easy to surmise that he doesn’t find an argument that doesn’t completely denounce violence in any shape, form, or fashion as justifiable. What immediately came to mind subsequently, (especially given that Mike Wallace is seemingly taking the stance of representing the majority demo, or “America” at the time) is the obvious irony behind that statement, even with it being made in that time period. Historically speaking, our country has justified violence for what it considered just cause numerous times; it’s how our country was formed.

What I took from this portion of their dialogue brought all these thoughts together for me. It created the mental space from which this is being written. It made me think about how we should be mindful, especially when possessing leverage or power, about the words we use to describe actions, people, events; etc. We should too be mindful of how we shape narratives, and as information receivers, we should be mindful about how we vet and share the information provided us.

We should also try to get to know and understand people for who they are and not base our perceptions on prejudices or judgments from others. Limiting what we can come to know about a person or persons makes understanding them less pertinent and dehumanizing them much more conducive.

We must only objectively look at the history of our country and the world to see how coercive titling and labeling, and misshaped narratives can play out. The effects range from harm and trauma to individuals and groups of people to wars being waged and fought across several countries and continents. After all, one group or country’s rebellion is another’s revolution, and one group’s pilgrimage is another’s invasion. One group’s riot is another’s protest. And if you treat what you perceive as an animal, should you then be surprised to observe an animal or be imposed upon by the presence and behavior of one?