What’s the meaning of “occupation”?

[ad_1]

Occupation is a figure of speech whereby the speaker or writer draws attention to something by specifically stating that they will not mention it. It can essentially be thought of as drawing attention to something about to pass over it. For example, someone wishing to disparage a political opponent might say, “I don’t wish to dwell on my opponent’s raging drinking and amoral womanizing as some news reports have done,” to draw attention to the issues and still appear to maintain the moral high ground. . While occupatio can easily be used in a negative way, as in the example, it can also be used as a more genuine means of passing over a subject while acknowledging it.

The definition of figure of speech is a way of speaking that differs from the simplest and clearest way of conveying information. This means that employment and other figures of speech are used in a targeted way because they are deviations from the simplest method of getting a point. Generally, they are then used to achieve a specific effect, which is why they are included in the study of rhetoric. The two most common uses of the technique are to acknowledge something without paying undue attention to it, and to draw attention to something despite not formally talking about it.

Paralipsis is another word commonly used instead of occupatio. The word comes from the Greek for “to leave aside,” which reflects the accepted meaning of the term when placed in the context of argument and discourse. Many other terms can also be used to mean the same thing as occupatio, such as apophasis and occultatio. Proslepsis is very similar to employment, but generally discusses the topic being “passed over” in much more detail. This is a much more blatant use of the same technique.

There are positive uses of occupation, although it could be argued that the technique lends itself more efficiently to negative use. For example, an academic discussing a controversial topic might want to gloss over something that leads to an erroneous conclusion, but ignoring it altogether might cast doubt on his or her objectivity. This can be understood in the context of the abortion debate. An academic might say, “Long discussions about the characteristics of embryos at various stages of pregnancy lead to sentimental and distracting discussions from the real issue,” if they argued that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape. This recognizes that aborted babies may have characteristics, but ignores them for the more pressing aspect of the problem.

Negative uses of occupation are much more common. For example, a politician might say something like “I don’t think it’s necessary to discuss the fact that my opponent was a drug addict” to raise the issue without appearing to be stooping to that level. This is rhetoric because it still maintains the ethos of the politicians, or the appearance of moral superiority, but changes the listener’s opinion of his opponent. The speaker says something through the very act of saying that he won’t talk about it.

[ad_2]