Individuals

[Mick F]

Why are people called "individuals" by the police, politicians, and social services, journalists or anyone in an official capacity ?

Maybe they've been doing it for ever, but now I've noticed it, it seems that it's constantly being used.

[[XAP]Bob]

Because they want to emphasise the softer, customer facing, aspect of heir work. Calling the proles ‘proles’ is considered derogatory.

[bovlomov]

Haven't the police always had their own elaborate vocabulary? 'Grevious' and 'mischievious' are common police words - the latter even being used by Sir Paul Condon in a parliamentary committee.

I remember a story, many years ago. A criminal of some sort was on trial. It emerged that the arresting officer had become suspicious because, when the officer had first approached, the accused had responded to questioning in the style of a policeman. That is, "I was proceedin' in a southerly direction."..etc.

[Psamathe]

"individual" or "individuals" and not "groups" or "organisations" or "companies". A generic term "people" does not distinguish whereas there is an "acting in the capacity of ..." implied in the vocabulary they use.

Just a thought,

Ian

[thirdcrank]

Haven't the police always had their own elaborate vocabulary? 'Grevious' and 'mischievious' are common police words - the latter even being used by Sir Paul Condon in a parliamentary committee.

I remember a story, many years ago. A criminal of some sort was on trial. It emerged that the arresting officer had become suspicious because, when the officer had first approached, the accused had responded to questioning in the style of a policeman. That is, "I was proceedin' in a southerly direction."..etc.

The version of that story I heard was that a lady of the type who judges describe as having fragrance - one of our betters - was up for something like shoplifting and the judge intervened to point out to the jury on his own initiative - ie not prompted by a defence submission - that her replies to the police must have been fabricated because ladies don't talk like that.

A lot of the lingo is externally imposed: if the statute says grievous bodily harm you are stuck with it. Some expressions like "information received" are simply a way of avoiding hearsay evidence. Also, it can be like walking on eggshells meeting the preferences of different groups: think here of "was in collision with." There are also plenty of OBJ merchants who pick up the jargon of other groups.

Once upon a time, the police service was a working class job, especially when there was direct entry into the officer class. Perhaps there was a time when addressing magistrates' court benches of toffs or being cross-examined by learned friends with a mouth stuffed full of plums there was a tendency to try and talk proper. "Hi was proceedin' in a heasterly direction hactin' on hinformation received when I 'eard ... "
=======================================================
PS I do read a lot of pseudo-legal codswallop on here based on TV cops, especially American TV cops

[bovlomov]

Once upon a time, the police service was a working class job, especially when there was direct entry into the officer class. Perhaps there was a time when addressing magistrates' court benches of toffs or being cross-examined by learned friends with a mouth stuffed full of plums there was a tendency to try and talk proper. "Hi was proceedin' in a heasterly direction hactin' on hinformation received when I 'eard ... "

That makes sense, and would explain why that kind of language was also found among butlers, chauffeurs and hotel doormen [see Parker in Thunderbirds]. I think a few like that still exist in the City of London, working for the livery companies or institutions.

[jgurney]

Why are people called "individuals" by the police, politicians, and social services, journalists or anyone in an official capacity ?

I suppose it avoids disclosing the person's gender, which might give a clue to their identity, and avoids the negative connotation which can be carried by 'person' (e.g. as in 'there is a person asking for you at the door', which can carry an implication that the speaker disapproves of the person involved). 'Individual' also carries the implication that the person referred to was not a representative or agent of any group.

[Mick F]

What's wrong with calling a dog, a dog?
Or a cat, a cat, or a horse, a horse?
Or a child, a child, or a girl, a girl, or a boy, a boy?
Maybe a man can't be called a man, or a woman be called a woman these days, but why can't a person be called a person?

[pwa]

"Individual" can be used in a derogatory way, such as in "a rather unhelpful individual", implying that the word is a restrained way of avoiding using a stronger word. A bit like referring to someone as a "specimen".

[Cugel]

Rabid individualism has been in vogue within Western nations for some time. It's most rabid in the USA and the UK. But the notion of an individual is rather new, in human history. Here's a nice book about it's origins:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Inventing-Indi ... ividualism

It's use by the authorities is to emphasise the darker side of being an individual, which is that you and you alone are held entirely responsible for your actions and situation on the grounds that you are a freely choosing individual who chooses to be bad or good, rich or poor, healthy or otherwise, etcetera. There are no extenuating circumstances that can be attributed to your being enmeshed in the various socio-economic nets that actually ensnare us all, to various degrees; and which tend to be large contributors to our actions, along with the little homunculus supposedly living inside your head that supposedly makes free choices of the bad-or-good type.

Well, unless you are a Toad-like motorist-victim of a persecuting fine collector or a heavy-duty capitalist who must serve the shareholders (although as an individual go-getter you also deserve the £1,000,000 bonus).

Cugel

[bovlomov]

Rabid individualism has been in vogue within Western nations for some time. <snip>

I don't see individuality and social conscience as being mutually exclusive or at opposite ends of the same axis. You can perfectly well be individualistic without trampling on everyone else.

It seems to me that what is often pejoratively ascribed to individualism is actually down to consumerism and greed. Consumerism, if anything, is a product of a herd mentality, not of individualism, as the primary purpose is to gain status within the group.

[Mick F]

I've no objection to be individual or individualistic, but why do People have to be called Individuals?

[pwa]

I've no objection to be individual or individualistic, but why do People have to be called Individuals?

If used logically, because it is people acting alone and not as a group.

[661-Pete]

I'm surprised that this has sparked a controversy. "Individual" is a word I use quite a lot, particularly when I either don't know, or don't want to specify, a person's sex. Especially when used in the plural, it neatly sidesteps the dilemma as to whether one should use the word "persons" or "people"...

Of course, some individuals on this forum are not going to like that...

[Mick F]

I'm not complaining about the word "individual" but it's use as a noun to describe a single separate person.
Individual is opposite to general. There are many individual things in the world, but they are things, not people. People deserve better than being called "an individual".

"An individual member of the public" is a good expression .............. not calling someone just a plain "individual".
I think it's a lazy use of the word.