Compliments of John Derbyshire, writing at the Corner:
[…] All the windsocks are now pointing in the direction of more socialism. As the population ages, Americans will want more leisure, drugs, health care, nursing homes, security. As the Jihadist threat continues to metastasize (from the MidEast to Indonesia, Thailand, Africa, the Caucasus, Europe), we shall want the state to have more police powers, more scrutiny of us and our lives. The trend of the last 40 years away from the old Anglo-Saxon rights and liberties—private property rights (google “tobacco settlement,” “Kelo,” etc.), freedom of speech, contract and assembly (“speech codes,” anti-discrimination laws, etc.), limited government (is Washington DC shrinking? looking poorer and shabbier? not that I’ve noticed)—will accelerate. And everybody will be fine with all this, because that’s what everybody wants, except for a few freakish intellectuals like ourselves.
[…] It’s over, conservatives. Go home. Take a cab.
For those of us disillusioned with the Miers nomination on the ground that it is a rebuke to overt (legal) conservatism, this has been a particularly difficult last couple of weeks. But, pace Derbyshire, all is not lost. Yet.
As regular readers of this site know, I’m of the mind that the battle for personal liberty—indeed, the battle for classical liberalism itself — is being lost structurally, and that our linguistic assumptions, which have moved away priviliging the utterer (and so away from intent and animating agency), have much to do with the errant thinking behind both our policy initiatives and the philosophical notions that propel contemporary political thinking, setting the stage for the soft totalitarianism of speech codes, thought crimes, proportional representation statutes, and other manifestations of pernicious identity politics disguised in the ameliorative language of “diversity” and “tolerance.”
Still, I’m far more sanguine than Derbyshire that a reversal of course is possible, though it is certainly true that such a reversal will require the consistent, forceful, and pointed refusal to accept linguistic bullying in any form—whether it’s aimed at Bill Bennett or at Burger King, at the Flight 93 Memorial or at Condi Rice (who, in Congressional hearings yesterday was disallowed to draw a World War II analogy because Barbara Boxer usurped ownership over the entire German narrative, invoking the moral authority of identity politics to stifle debate by noting that she had lost family in the Holocaust, and so she didn’t need to hear about WWII).
Boxer’s assertion—which boils down to an idea of genetic memory—is incoherent, but because it carries such emotional weight, we tend to show deferrence, not wishing to give offense or be labeled insensitive. Such is the force the movement to demonize certain language has had on us as a culture. But all of these small, linguistic coups in the name of identity politics—whether it’s blacks assuming ownership over the slavery narrative, Jews assuming ownership over the Holocaust, Hawaiians assuming ownership over depictions of native stories—when taken together, move our culture inexorably away from personal responsibility and individual liberty (our very founding principles) and toward the future that Derbyshire sees as an inevitability.
I hold out hope that the democratization of media and a systemic change in the way information is disseminated can act as a corrective to the assumptions contained in the dominant, postmodern master narrative that—insofar as it priviliges the receivers of language (uprooting the process of signification from its intentionalist moorings and so leaving it open to power and will),—has reduced epistemology to a battle of narratives assumed by warring, self-interested interpretive communities.
To be clear, I am not disputing the fundamental observations of postmodernism; instead, I am pointing out that a simplistic and widespread misunderstanding of postmodernism—which has insinuated itself into political philosophy on both the left and right (but which is predominantly and purposely a tool of the left)—has allowed for the kind of linguistic relativism that provides justification for our most egregious political missteps.
To put it as simply as possible, the attenuation of individual liberty is, in my judgment (and I’m still trying to get a handle on all of this, so I welcome your comments) the product of a simplistic and logically incoherent linguistic relativism (born of a refusal to recognize the necessity of intent in the animation of language) that underpins the kind of political philsophies that are proving anathema to classical liberal ideals.
And the best way to combat this is to identify it, explain how it works in the clearest language possible (to that end, I’m about to begin work on a novella that picks up these themes), then forcefully and publicly rebuke it without fear that we will be shamed into silence by shouts that we are racist or sexist or homophobic, etc, for having done so.
Um . . yeah, whatever. Get back to smashing apples, wouldya?
Your quest for “linguistic purity” resembles the Nazi’s quest for racial purity. It’s just like you neocons to hijack the debate and turn it around to a war on “terrorism.”
Today American soldiers desecrated the bodies of two Muslims, yet you will go on and on about how evil “terrorists” are for fighting for their country in Iraq and Palistine.
Will Saddam, former president of Iraq, get a fair trial? Nope, instead we need to distract the public from the guilt of Karl Rove. Bush is the real criminal.
Jeff,
What you said…and it’s made worse by the ongoing pussification of America.
I can recall laying some grad school blather on my Old Dad who came out of the coal mines and WWII. He told me that I was full of shit, and he was right.
Half the world is full of shit and we’re afraid to say so.
Pathetic really. Dick Cheney told Pat Leahy to fuck off. That’s a good start. He needs to march right over to the well of the Senate right now and announce to the world that Barbara Boxer is full of shit and a nasty bitch to boot.
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
LINK: http://www.two–four.net/weblog.php?id=P1912
Is Frametwo a parody of the Left, or the real thing? (Or, does it really matter? There’s a postmodern question for ya!)
Seriously, Jeff, the simplistic and logically incoherent linguistic relativism you describe is not born of a refusal to recognize the necessity of intent in the animation of language.
It’s born of television.
For about 50 years, television has been the dominant medium of political discourse (especially the kind of political discourse that is not overtly political, like the kind that you get by watching Archie Bunker, or Katrina coverage). Before that it was radio.
In contrast, text-based communication promotes rationality and logical reasoning. There’s a reason that “law” and “the written word” come from the same etymological source (lex).
Honey, if you can’t read the big words, you shouldn’t comment on the post.
What I wouldn’t pay for Rice to have said “With all due respect, Senator, shut the fuck up for once in your God-damn life.”
And since I’m not the Secretary of State, and I’m not talking to the Senate, and I don’t have to worry about politics, I’ll jsut say:
How about a nice steaming mug of shut the fuck up, Frametwo?
I’d address your “points”, but it’s been done, I have no reason to believe you’d listen, or understand if you did.
Well, Phinn, I think visual mediums don’t help matters, but the fact remains that, academically and intellectually, we’ve been undermining the primacy of the utterance for a generation now, and we’re seeing its practical effects. Politicians, pundits, and media folk schooled on response theory—on the post structural death of the author and the end to metaphysical groundings to truth—are now in positions to put those “lessons” into action. Edward Said and Orientalism cemented the idea of “authenticity” that philosophical undergirds identity politics. These teachings have practical effects. But they can only be taken seriously under certain linguistic conditions—conditions that I believe are often not met by much of linguistic theory.
Excellent post. How to make practical use of it though? I have worked in and out of politics for years, but have yet to find the necessary continuity of message outside of figures such as RR and other dynamic leaders. The message seemed to die with the term of the leader. I am serious in asking for thoughts on how we, as individuals, move this message beyond our personal sphere.
Good question. And the answer is, I have no idea—though one suggestion I often make is that those of us on the right stop the world-weary resignation and/or sanctimony with which we sometimes greet high profile public moments that lend themselves to such correctives.
The White House, for instance, blew a major opportunity—and in fact set things back—with it’s reaction to Bennett’s remarks. And there were many on the right who were quick to distance themselves from Bennett rather than insisting that we need to recognize his argument in its entirety and in the proper context, both of which spoke to his intent.
Why use this topic to make that argument? Why not wait until Jeff is a conversing with a hangover? Why not do it when he is interviewing Ted Kennedy’s head? At least on those contexts your argument would be just silly. In this context it is equally as silly, and you make Jeff’s point for him too.
Jeff, my analysis of the linguistic problem is only slightly different from yours. I agree that the sapping of intentionality in language reflects social tendencies toward the avoidance of social responsibility. In one respect, we are giving up our linguistic intentionality because we (as a society) don’t want to take responsibility for our own thoughts. I.e., If our thoughts are socially constructed, how can our speech be truly intentional? Thus, if a speaker uses the word “niggardly” even with a full understanding of the etymology of the term (completely unrelated to “the N word)he cannot be excused from the “racist” label, because his intent doesn’t matter—his underlying prejudice is revealed in the choice of that word, which need only sound racist to others, over any other word, which would sound less racist. There is another side to the phenomenon that I would emphasize much more strongly, though, and that is the dangerous will to power, the desire to exert control over the thoughts of others by demanding linguistic conformity, that underlies the usurpation of intentionality in the speech of others. You mentioned it in the Barbara Boxer example. Not only did Rice willingly give up her analogy rather than offend, Boxer aggressively demanded control over Rice’s speech acts. And when the willingness to cede control begins to match the willingness to usurp control, you have an environment that is inimical to intellectual freedom. I believe that the only possible “corrective” is, as you point out, “the democratization of media and a systemic change in the way information is disseminated.” But that has to happen in an environment that encourages the personal ownership of utterance and actively discourages the usurpation of that ownership.
Jeff, I’m bookmarking this post. It’s a perfect summary for the things that go on at your site that people should pay attention to.
Well, that and the goddamn armadillo I guess.
Jeff,
Truly enjoyable. Please write the novel[la] and inform us when it’s published.
The apple should be at least a minor character, if only in the protagonist’s dreams.
tw “him” as in “I have a metanarrative, and him don’t because him too postmodern.”
HCT
–
Atlas Blogged
by Jeff Goldstayn
—
A parallel in my sphere was the Congressional races of 1984. Our group was assigned to the southeastern states and were expected to fail by our employers,the NRCC. We won the south that cycle by taking the (our) argument to the people. Instead of allowing the media to frame our arguments we trained, managed and did on-site control directing Republican campaigns and candidates to speak directly to the electorate. We got booed in union halls, heckled in black churches, threatened when near reservations, but worked every corner of every district on every day right up to election day. Even we were stunned at the results. That is why this post struck a cord with me. Message and language are not necessarily the same, but they are the key to opening here-to-fore minds.
Jeff, it’s the hate speech *laws* and codes that are infringement of liberty, – not persons “bullying” by expressing dismay at another’s choice of words or symbols, or pointing out that there are unfortunate but inevitable associations to be drawn from a speaker or artists words.
I have a perfect right to be offended and to take things the wrong way. Intent matters, and it may matter most, but context and pre-existing collective linguistic assumptions do too. This will happen as long as we have language with us.
I’m not sure I understand where this collective amnesia of the basic prinicples of self-government and of the natural rights of man
began and I don’t know where it will end, but it isn’t occurring because Burger King caters to it’s customers , or because some demand allusions to a culture that inspired a band of murderers are taken out of memorial to their victims.
Of course, you are pointing to something deeper than these little examples. And when you get around to your ultimate point, that speech codes, thought crimes, proportional representation are wrong, bad, should be stopped, you can have no argument from me.
Yes, there is a current of historical illiteracy, seeming abandonment of the old Anglo-Saxon rights and liberties…
However, it’s more because <b>it stopped being cool to have the old ideas in circles where ideas get shared</a>, less because the intelligensia or mob is all ready to jump over chairs shouting “INSULT” INSULT.”
Perhaps your real complaint is with sloppy thinking, and ignorant hyper-emotionalism, failure to properly instruct the young, and the fact we put up with and are cowed by resort of these ignorants to violence and thuggery, put in the service of competing inferior ideologies ( all some variation of the theme that “social justice” is preferable to indivdual liberty.)
Also, here-to-fore closed minds. Such language!
Sarah —
Burger King was within its rights (which I noted at the time). But their surrender is no less problematic insofar as it emboldens similar complaints from other aggrieved groups, while at the same time lending legitimacy to the complaint.
You have a right to be offended. But I have a right to point out when your offense is based on faulty linguistic assumptions, and how those assumptions, when they extrapolate out into the political and policy sphere, make for bad legislation and bad law.
Jeff, I may be misreading, but the red state/blue state polarization from the past elections, coupled with things like the Bush Derangement Syndrome (exhibited nicely above) seem to have energized a fair number of moderates. (AKA “Classic Liberals”) In other words, it seems like people are getting educated, paying attention, and picking sides.
I’m tired of attempting discussion with morons who insist that Bush knew this or lied about that. You can’t change those minds because BDS (or whatever) has become their belief system. I’m far more interested in reaching out to those who are undecided or are seeking a ‘third way’. More personal freedom, lower taxes, small strong government, education, free enterprise, etc.
And so I think it’s no accident that the two ‘sides’ of this newest form of discussion – the blogosphere – aren’t dominated by traditional left and right. They’re dominated by the far left (like KOS et al) which has always been vocal and activist by nature. And on the other side by the those like you, Glenn, and millions of others who are willing to fight for a more classically liberal position. Young, educated, technically savvy, and not beholden to any political party by dint of class, history or upbringing.
So Derbyshire’s correct in a way: pure conservatism is dying and I personally say good riddance. But the fight against socialism in the US – against the slow slide into an irrelevant quasi-European nanny state – is far from over. Really, the battle has really just been and I see many who would have formerly voted Democrat flocking to a revived Republican party. A party that is being wrested from tired and frail conservative hands and being re-energized and repurposed by folks like you. Some on the Right are uncomfortable with aspects of their new bedfellows (Malkin and Hewitt come to mind) but the tide has changed and pure conservatism as a winning poltical force is dead.
So I would argue that as we fight for control of language and refuse to cede it to the left; as we refute new meanings and disallow words like ‘articulate’ to be co-opted; as we point out the stunning failures of identity politics; as we gain a wider and wider audience among those who are sick of Left’s insistance on self-loathing and yet unhappy with the Right’s inability to fight this battle, I think we’ll see an increase in this ‘third way’ political movement.
Sarah, I think you’re underestimating the power of the hive mentality of people who want to repress other people’s personal expression. It’s not just a matter of shouting “Insult”; That could just lead to a “No it isn’t; yes it is” exchange. It becomes bullying when it’s a matter of saying you don’t have the right to call your thoughts, and thus your speech, your own, that someone else has the right to define your intentions for you. This kind of thinking doesn’t need to be codified in the statute books in order to close down debate and stunt intellectual freedom if people readily submit to being bullied into conformity.
The battle has just been joined, is what I meant to say.
I agree in that this “democritization” challenges the “facts” that the liberal master narrative is founded upon. Prior to this the public’s primary sources of information were filtered through a Liberal sieve and served to reinforce their world-view.
That refusal is a tactical refusal in that its sole purpose is the undermining of competing political philosophies. It would seem, and I am still working this out as well- and I lack your acuity Jeff, that relativism is only relevant when it comes to opposing view points. What I see is less of a consistent application of an ontological theory than a collection of rhetorical tactics used, whether they are consistent with one another or not, in an attempt to obliterate competing political visions.
This is the real crux. The Po Mo opponents of classical Liberalism use rhetorical tactics to induce feelings of guilt in their opponents. Especially if that opponent is white or male. I have held for a while now that it is time to call them on this. No longer should we stand idly by and suffer such slander. If we truly believe in individual responsibility then we should only accept guilt for actions that we have personally participated in.
The instinctive twinge of guilt or shame one feels at the mere accusation that we are (insert favored hippie pejorative here) is a testament to the moral evolution that our society has undergone. But that does not detract from our duty to not allow gratuitous assertions to stand unchallenged merely to preserve a climate of politeness.
Screw that noise, Jeff.
WE’RE IN SOME PRETTY SHIT NOW!
GAME OVER, MAN!
THOSE THINGS ARE GONNA COME IN HERE, AND THEY’RE GONNA KILL US…!
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a cab to catch.
Derbyshire is not correct. He’s wrong because Americans are optimists. No one else in the world understands this. Derbyshire’s a foreigner, which explains how he got this one so wrong.
The only way that Leftism makes any headway is by pretending that massive socialistic institutions aren’t already in our midst.
We have socialized education, socialized currency, socialized transportation, a socialized retirement system, socialized elder health care, and a tax system that is based on the individual rather than the activity (i.e., income tax), not to mention 100,000 niggling rules and regulations that control everything from the price of a bushel of wheat to the price of ordinary sugar.
If you want a real education in the evils of socialism, just wait till you hear how the federal government is responsible for replacing the real, honest-to-God sugar they once used to make Coca-cola with high-fructose corn syrup! They sell better Coke in Mexico, for cryin’ out loud!
Once word gets out about the Coca-cola thing, it’s the end of the Lefties, no doubt about it.
Sarah, those codes and laws are only an institutionalized version of the “bullying” that Jeff’s talking about. The uncodified bullying was in place before the codes and had the same practical effect. By allowing the listener to take the speaker’s words, strip them of their original intent, and lay down an emotional trump card that type of bullying allows the listener to reframe the narrative in their favor.
Allowing that type of interaction in our discourse gives listeners power they haven’t earned by robbing speakers of the right to control the meaning of their own statements. Allowing it illegitimately grants power or privilege to a person by taking it from its rightful owner; it empowers the listener by infringing on the liberty of the speaker.
Come see the forces Jeff speaks of in action, courtesy of the ever-entertaining OW.
On the novella: I’m thinking about writing a story about a taco that is abandoned, and in whose shell is discovered the image of Jesus.
Or is it?
Clearly, lots of folks would be interested in claiming ownership over such a taco…
Certainly, the loss of intentionality has created an open zone where meaning can be determined by the recipient, and, worst of all, then ascribe that meaning back to the utterer (remember, the teacher fired for using the word, “niggardly?”)
But as far as Rorty’s “outside” world, one of the ways that we can evaluate narratives is with logic. Evidentiary claims must be evaluated according to logical reasoning.
Logic is based on mathematics.
Mathematics is a little thornier an issue when it comes to its status. It is not a human-created construct, like language, it’s relationships are found inherent in nature, and, thus, the world “outside.” We don’t invent the laws of mathematics, we discover them.
Jeff, isn’t mathematics, and therefore, logic an objective standard that we can rely on as outside the realm of human subjective meaning and interpretation?
“taco” is a loaded racist term, you bigot. Did you FORGET?
Well, the logical positivists have their critics too, T. See esp. Karl Popper.
I just want to say that I’m still all for Chief Illiniwek.
You couldn’t be more correct. The degredation of thought begins with the corruption of language.
Getting it, was also correct in observing that this descent into the madness of Orwellian doubletalk is a weapon of the left. Phinn too is correct in noting that since the advent of radio and especially television, we have seen a coarsening of thought that is directly related to the misuse and decoupling of language from objective meaning.
That’s one of the reasons that I’m so enthusiastic about this medium. Not only have the gate-keepers of information been by-passed and the narrative of events been returned to where it belongs, in the hands of ordinary people. But that it is a written medium and writing forces you to compose your thoughts in a somewhat coherent manner, (Frametwo being the obvious exception to the rule if he’s serious).
The reclaiming of laguage is the first step in the return to sanity. Derbyshire is to a degree, correct too though. We should all get ready for a long uphill battle.
I agreed all of the above are unacceptable affronts to liberty. BUT –
I’m saying that it’s a pretty big leap from swirly cones to there, and that it’s not linguistic sloppiness CAUSING deterioration of classical liberalism and Anglo Aaxon ideals – there is a deeper sickness resulting from other causes.
One more word about that Burger King business…
What? Shouldn’t Burger King (or other producers of consumer goods) respond to consumer complaints about offensive packaging caused inadvertantly by the language barrier? I say they should if they want to sell stuff.
But lets go a little deeper. If the swirly said “tastes bad like quinine” or “spider guts” in farsi, I don’t think you would think it a significant “concession” to alter the graphic design of the cone, or be worried about encouragement of other similar concessions in the future. Its that the complainer saw “ALLAH” – and the complainer asserted cultural primacy of his religious belief. Isn’t it that assertion of cultural primacy that made Burger King’s concession worrisome?
It’s certainly almost bad manners now to to assert the cultural primacy of American ideals…in AMERICA. This has *me* upset.
” because Barbara Boxer usurped ownership over the entire German narrative…”
I’m sorry, but I just went to the Mercury link you give and read it twice, and there is no reference to WWII or Germans.
What the heck are you talking about?
Paul —
Boxer tried to shout Rice down by saying she had relatives who died in the Holocaust, and so Rice’s invocation of allied actions against Hitler (she was drawing an analogy to Iraq) was something Boxer wouldn’t be lectured on.
I saw the clip on one of the news shows yesterday. The link goes to a story on the hearings in which the exchange takes place. So far, I can’t find a story that mentions that portion of the exchange, which is why I explained what happened in the post itself.
So, and I admit that I may have totally missed the point, does the problem lie with the lingustics or with society and it’s response to it? While I can honestly say that I don’t have the background to argue lingustics at almost any level, the problem seems to be the intent of the language used not the usage it recieves.
I’m not sure if it was a side effect of civil rights or sexual harrassment, but somewhere along the line the worst sin you can commit in America is to offend someone. The whole intent of this new trend seems to stem from societal adjustment try to argue a point on a undefined, murky surface of “non-offensive speech.”
Now that has disintigrated to an abject social fear of being labeled “intolerant” or “racist” or “sexist” or “ageist” or whatever “ist” you can define.
I agree that standing up to speech codes is a needed step to protect indiviual freedom, but I’m afraid that this is a symptom, not the root. The root seems to be a cultural predisposition towards victim worship in the face of injustices, instead of moral outrage. This is mostly because American is becoming amoral, rather than immoral. America’s people don’t seem to believe in her or her values anymore, due to the desire to not be “disrespectful” to other cultures. In turn, they has no outrage to fuel their need to protect them and as a result we continue to slide don’t a “pollitically correct” lubed slope of cultural relativism.
God, that sounds even worse now that I wrote it. I may have to do some serious drinking to get past that.
See—there’s your problem. An exchange like that is only noteworthy on television.
If some schmo were to trot out that kind of half-baked retort online, we’d all instantly recognize the speaker to be a Frametwo-caliber mouth-breather. In fact, Frametwo tried to make a pitiful Nazi reference just a couple of hours ago, and look at the traction he got. Zero.
But on TV, it’s flashy. Boxer knows this. The medium is designed to make a splash, then immediately move on. To sports. Or boobs. All with just about the same level of intellectual impact.
It’s amazing—on TV, they are able to go from the most outrageous shit you’ve ever seen, and two seconds later they’re talking about Tyra Banks or something. There’s no differentiation in moral or intellectual import.
In short, TV is incapable of serious discourse.
Don’t forget your Marshall Macluhan. The medium is the message.
*Today American soldiers desecrated the bodies of two Muslim*
You stupid tosser. Muslims, especially radicals, have learned to act offended by everything.
Case in point :
http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3334090/
Remember the Koran affair. Remember that their prisoners get three squares and the koran to read, our prisoners get the big head chop. I’m not going to cater to fucking Islam when it seems that the vast majority of people trying to kill us are muslim.
Do I care that two marines “desecrated” the body of an enemy ? No. Why ? Remember Fallujah. Would I care if two marines “desecrated” an Iraqi fighting with us ? Yes, I’d be a bit more concerned.
We’re in a war, we’re not play paddycake.
Sean-
In terms of the preservation of Liberty, I see one whale of difference between de facto and de jure rules of conversaton. All the difference in the world.
Men.
Using words like this is a female martial art. It’s been used against me and I don’t always win.
(But I live to triumph another day.)
You are quite correct that this “kind of discourse” is a power grab.
And it’s an old kind of power grab, even when politics was limited to the world of men. What I think is different now is the will to do battle with it.
RE: Frametwo
Discussing Linguistics = National Socialists’ program of Genocide
Debating = Using violent force ot take over an airplane
Burning the bodies of dead enemy soldiers = Bombings and murder of innocent civilians
Trial of genocidal dictator = Unfair
Karl Rove being guilty without a trial = Fair
George Bush being guilty without a trial = Fair
This seems to have as a backdrop some underlying liberal-style belief in an achievable, static utopia–in this case a hypothetically failed “conservative” utopia.
The fact of the matter, of course, is that there is no utopoian intentionalist future, for example. We will always be stacking our ideological blocks on a treadmill. As Derbyshire implicitly recognizes with the phrase “as the population ages,” cultural shifts between security and freedom, impulse and responsibility, debauchery and decorum, are generational and cyclical. Conservatism should really be about curbing the excesses of these fickle fluctuations and holding an eye on the noble mean. I just find despair over lost causes to be unbecoming of conservatives who should recognize they will eternally be struggling for sanity in futures of varying insanity.
The satisfaction of fighting these battles has to come in the battles themselves (which do have very real, though limited, practical impact), rather than in some retained hope of a final victory.
(The more I write in this comment, the less I wish I would have written. But . . . too late now.)
It’s one thing when this sort of power grab is just between individuals. Then it’s as Sarah says. But I think Sean is talking about a larger social phenomenon, and I don’t see it as a male-female issue at all. I don’t know where that came in.
Like hell this is the end, my friend, of our little jont into self reliance. If our aging population wants its Viagra and heart medicine they’ll shut the fuck up and vote for the Fair-Tax.
Ah HA! DO NOT TAKE WAY MY ANIMATING AGENCY!
My last post to Sean –
part A (male female issue) – mostly joke
part B – main point (it’s an old kind of power grab, sex notwithstanding. What I think is different now is the will to do battle with it)
BINGO!
I totally agree with that.
(especially if people start calling me SEXIST.)
Another great article that I think dovetails with Jeff’s point here is Jonathan Rauch’s “In Defense of Prejudice”:
JR’s article isn’t so much about linguistics, but it does point out the shift from the idea of prejudice as the holding of irrational and unjust opinions about a group (which harms the one holding such opinions, but does not in itself constitute harm to the protected group) to the idea of prejudice as the use of forbidden language (and the idea that the words themselves constitute harm to members of the protected group). And then of course words that the hearer decides are “wounding” become acts of prejudice, even if the speaker doesn’t hold any prejudicial opinions about the protected group. So “prejudice” can exist totally independent of the attitudes of the person supposedly exhibiting it.
Fascinating stuff… somehow it also recalls the idea that evil is inherent in guns as objects, rather than in the intentions of the people using them.
Thanks for that, Kevin.
I think we pretty much agree on part B, Sarah. Gail’s right that I was talking about the informal rules about the way we speak to each other in society. I agree that it’s an old kind of power grab, but today it seems to be ragarded as legit as more and more common. Not that long ago it would have been pretty universally recognized as the dirty rhetorical trick it is.
As to part A, I laughed and sure won’t say that you’re wrong there either. My wife’s got her brown belt at least in this martial art.
Thanks for all the comments, folks. I had hoped this post would gain some traction beyond this blog and pull in some non-regular commenters (sent the post around to a few people), but alas, no bites. Thankfully, you guys cover a good deal of ground in your responses, and I appreciate it.
Anyway, I’m kinda worn out—woke this morning to an email telling me I’d been delinked because the site had “gone to the dogs”—so I’m thinking I should step away and watch some movies.
Back when the happy drugs kick in.
I’m not ready to call the undertaker, but I agree with Derbyshire that socialistic tendencies will prevail for a while–until we run out of taxpayers to support the entitlement guzzlers, until the Southwest collapses into permanent bankruptcy.
Society is always in the act of creation and destruction. The post-WWII boom years have spoiled us as far as humanly possible, destroying self-reliance to a great extent. Just about everyone who lived through the Great Depression or who remembers the near half million who died in WWII is gone. So we worry about “offending” people because there’s not much of anything else to worry about–until the terrorists hit us again, perhaps. The public knows this rhetoric is stupid and are rejecting the media, academia, and movies.
When the bubble bursts, the strong will survive and create a new ethic, or a return to a previous one. It’s already starting. On the local news last night, they showed one segment on Saddam’s trial. The next 10 seconds was on the accusation of burning of corpses. They can’t even mention a maniacal dictator’s trial without an “equal, balanced” attack on the US. And that’s why the MSM is hemorraghing viewers.
The trackback didn’t work, but I just posted a relatively long post with my own thoughts, here.
You’ve been doing phenomenal work in the past couple of months, Jeff. I have no idea what that “gone to the dogs” remark is supposed to mean, but it isn’t right.
I’m pretty sure Frametwo’s a deliberate spoof of Frameone, a guy who seemed to think that working on a PhD while teaching film criticism was something to be proud of and imparted some authority to what he said, instead of the opposite.
Hint: making an “academic” argument is not a complement in most contexts.
I move for more of the GAY PORN COCK OF LIES! That’d probably scare all the dogs away, or at least drive this blog to other places besides kennels.
Gail’s right, Jeff. You’ve been on one hell of a roll for months now. I don’t know what they could be talking about with that comment.
not john derbyshire: points at KLO “Why don’t you put her in charge?!”
Get the feeling Buckley may be reconsidering his retirement? Not exactly the Rock of the Marne over there, are they?
There’s only one thing left to do about The Corner:
“Nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.”
Another example of meaning twisted by political agenda is the designation of a “hate” crime. Even CNN wonders why five blacks arrested for the recent killing of six Hispanics is not a hate crime, especially as it’s part of a pattern of mutual racial violence that’s gone on for months.
Outstanding post.
Since the left controls the academy and media, note how they can use this control to make their narrative the dominant one, and thereby control political debate.
TW:types- This distortion of language restricts the types of thought that are allowed to take place.
True enough and I’ve read Ayer and Popper’s later stuff, and while we can’t achieve the kind of purity the Positivist crowd wished for, the tenets of logic do seem to me to be an objective standard and a tool by which we can, and must, deflate the relativist and/or Lefty narrative.
While we may not be able to verify that all ravens are black, we can say that All black ravens are not white or No non-white ravens are not black, i.e. establish the truth or definitive untruth of certain narratives through plain logical principles. We stop this encroaching linguistic and political miasma by countering with syllogism and by identifying the specific informal fallacies that are being employed. I think calmly and patiently pointing up lazy logic is the most lethal way to nullify statements like Boxer’s or the typical post from that feminista you’ve been talking with lately (by the way, what ever happened to all our suggestions as to remaking the Democratic party? …so, no changes by the Dems, then?)
Gone to the dogs? Hardly. I still think that all of these language posts should be placed in a category of their own on the sidebar or something.
You’ve been on fire with these, dude.
This has been some good-ass teachin’ shit on yer site. Some dumb-ass motherfuckers just don’t get it, do they?
Sorry. The Jagermeister took over the dominant narrative in my brain.
Seriously, this is like a graduate course in logic/rhetoric. I enjoy you flexing your intellectual muscles along with pea-coat wearing dolphins and dancing armadillos.
Fucking Derb. Fucking Derb jeep.
Excellent debate all.
Unfortunately, I have no idea what the root causes of this linguistic mess are, and I have little inkling as to how widely it is being driven because I tend to avoid the news media these days.
I tend to think, though, that what is perpetuating the problem is not so much a lack of drive to take responsibility for our thoughts, as gail spoke of, but more of a societal castration, if you will (SEXIST YOU USED A MALE TERM). We all know Boxer, for instance, was being a blithering idiot, and, frankly, deserved a smack upside the head. But it is hard to garner social support for standing up and telling her the truth. It would be “impolite” in this society, and the peer pressure to simply concede to Boxer’s drool-ridden mewlings and avoid the confrontation against someone’s pseudo-moral claim has to be immense.
That, and it probably just isn’t politically expedient. Waging that kind of war would take political capital and a gusto for presentation both of which the Bush administration has shown time and again to have next to none of.
Extra Credit:
Reinterpret this post so that I am a sexist viewing male traits as dominant and desirable, also show that I approve of violence against women, but you don’t get any credit for it because it is too easy.
Hrm, left the Extra Credit paragraph AND the all-caps footnote in there. I had meant to remove one of them.
Aw well, everyone gets the extra credit, because we’re in an enlightened classroom of this generation, I wouldn’t want any of you to feel offended.
Turing word “final,” as in “The final WOULD be open book, but that would be biased of me. Not all of you are at the same reading level.”
On a serious note, when DID society start thinking that offending someone was an unpardonable sin?
I’d been delinked because the site had “gone to the dogsâ€Ââ€â€so I’m thinking I should step away and watch some movies.
WHO SAID THAT? I’M GONNA GO KICK HIS ASS! “GONE TO THE DOGS”? WHAT AN INSENSITIVE SON OF A BITCH! I HAVE ALREADY CONTACTED THR ACLU AND AM JUST WAITING TO FIND OUT WHO WOULD ASSAULT ME IN SUCH AN OUTRAGEOUSLY AND OPENLY BIASED FASHION. HOW DARE THEY????…
Re your summation: the attenuation of individual liberty is the product of a simplistic and logically incoherent linguistic relativism that underpins the kind of political philsophies that are proving anathema to classical liberal ideals.
I prefer the response of the character Colonel Black in Catch 22 who, when confronted with novel requirements to perform endless loyalty oaths to get a simple lunch in the messhall, bellows “Gimme eats!” until the foolishness stops.
In refusing to allow the rules of the game to be set by the opposition, one progresses immediately to the game itself, rather than wasting time on their foolishness.
“Gimme eats!” makes a great rallying cry, and likely incorporates PIE among the possible responses.
TW: husband, as in “Husband your resources for the actual conflict.” Or, “My husband has an enormous COCK.”
Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever enjoyed this site more than I have of late. Jeff, this post is EXACTLY the kind of discussion we need to be having, and I really appreciate you taking the time to engage on it.
I don’t have any answers as to how best to counter the issues with linquistics other than personally not caving in to the pressure to say the “right” thing or keep silent. I, much to my chagrin, have far too often caved in both respects. It’s something that must be changed, and in my little sphere of influence it all starts with me. I thank you for the reminder.
TW: true. As in, this post rings true for me.
Jeff, what I am most curious about is whether or not you believe that most of those who are destroying our culture, liberty, and so many other things we hold dear understand these issues as you do, and as such are consciously trying to usurp my authority over my own intent. Or is it sheer dumb luck on their part?
Turing word: based, as in all your based’s are belong to us!
Patricia wrote:
As we learned in United Steelworkers of America v. Brian F. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979), these laws have the sole aim of addressing crimes comitted by whites. All other groups have been designated as victims, with women added as well. In hippie identity politics no member of an oppressed class can EVER be a victimizer. Of course none of this is explicitly stated in any legislation that addresses race. It couldn’t be because the hippies are politically clever and they knew that if this interpretation were ever openly stated that the racists in our society would act to repeal it. However, it is fairly clear if one observes how these rules are actually applied.
Hippies use language tactically. Their statements serve as camouflage which hides their true intentions. But since they have to act in the real world, their intentions can be inferred by observing how their actions contrast with their rhetoric. This is why it was so important that they maintain an ideological monopoly on the media in order to preserve their linquistic Potemkin Village.
Whenever we teach a kid that his interpretation of, say, a book or movie is as valid as the next person’s, we are devaluing language and implicitly supporting the kind of maneuvers I describe above. Such a procedure appears to be personally empowering and esteem-aiding (and, most ironically, “democratizing”) but what it really is doing is suggesting that there is no ground upon which to determine whether an interpretation or an opinion is reasonable or valid, etc.
This has the practical effect of relativizing interpretation and placing the power to define with the interpreter.
These maneuvers started out as a conscious attempt to undermine orthodoxies and radicalize the grounds of meaning. But now that they’ve been refigured as ways to democratize and empower—and now that their radicalism has been rhetorically tempered—they are especially pernicious, particularly insofar as they have insinuated themselves into much of our political philosophy through multiculturalism and identity politics, both of which were forged in this particular postmodern linguistic foundry.
Some of those who teach this stuff are aware of how it functions, but some are not, and believe only that they are teaching language in a way that empowers the most people.
I’m not entirely with you on this. Interperting fiction has, I think, a fair amount of legitimate wiggle room—I got into a debate with a teacher once concerning a specific poem. I argued that it was about the poet’s mother; he felt it was about God, and at the end we agreed it was ambiguous enough that either could be “right.”
But there’s a huge difference between nonfiction and fiction, I think.
I asked for it, so I must say “thank you!”:
<a href=”https://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19219/#109096″ target=”_blank”>
I entirely agree that the linguistics posts should get their own category, as should the “Some notes and tips on…” series.
John,
I think he means interpretation of subtext or formation of narrative itself, which is the playround of the po-mos. You can indeed both be correct in your interpretation of a poem to you personally. Political/social types, however, might ban a poem containing a word like “niggardly” because the (incorrect) interpretation of the word, that it is a racist signifier, is valued over its intentioned (correct) meaning. It doesn’t matter what it really means.
So, all interpretations are equal and nobody is right, until someone in authority tells you yours is wrong. They use the power structure they claim to abhor to enforce their interpretation.
Or Barbara Boxer yelling at Rice to shut up because she, Boxer, owns the whole discourse of the Holocaust.
GREAT UNANSWERED QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH CLASS HISTORY:
“Well, Toni Morrison is still around? Why don’t we just ask her what Beloved is supposed to represent?”
I think this sort of statement could use a BIT more clarification. Take Eliot’s “The Waste Land” (Please, take it. Nobody wants to read it.) or some of Whitman’s stuff. The kinda junk we choked through in high school English. I think some of the interpretations of those sorts of works can play toward the author’s intent by acknowledging that, especially in the stated cases, the works are too bizarre, random, or obtuse to wield any specific meaning.
Then again, most such juvenile level interpretations don’t include caveats to that effect. And, besides, how many scholarly interpretations really express that sort of humility of thought?
Turing word “thats” as in: “I suppose thats too much to ask.”
Why is that?
You always have some Dems hanging around, and if you’d mentioned the Iraq War or Jesse’s statements after Katrina you certainly would have gotten some comments. I think it’s because the Left don’t see this as a source of contention, or, at least, don’t feel threatened that this-taking possession of language to advance their narrative-is what they’re doing.
Jeff, would it make a difference to you solution of rebuking these attempts at proprietorship of language by distinguishing between those who do this knowingly and those that don’t?
I’ve revised my thinking on this so, Jeff and all, let me know what you think:
the Sheehan tragi-comedy provides a good example: Kos, seeing an opportunity to further his agenda, posting a marketing strategy patently manipulating language (e.g.,”Mother” Sheehan) and events that was clearly intentional, however, Maureen Dowd’s statement that Sheehan had “an aboslute moral authority” to critizice the war, I think was not intended as manipulation.
Anyone who shows up on your site and immediatley starts with the Rethuglican, racist, etc. bit isn’t intending to engineer language in any way that’s just the way they think.
So, rebuking them would do no good. You may tear down the walls but the foundation remains untouched; you can stem the flow of such poisonous thinking but this doesn’t affect the wellspring. I believe the hard Left retains assumtions and stereotypes from which stem such statements as Boxer’s, so rebuking them is ineffective. Instead of premeses leading to a conclusion, they begin with conclusions and no reasoning will dissuade this.
Judging by your site and others, conservatives can reason out their positions, but for Lefties, manipulation of the stereotypes in their heads constitutes argument. I know this is a broad generalization, but how else do you explain the statements so many of them make?
The problem is that it is not just the Kos kids who think this way, but judging by their remarks, also Boxer, Jackson, and, even Howard Dean.
Rather than attack their use of language, I think it more direct to undercut these tacit assumptions and stereotypes, only then can we then turn to debate.
Sorry, Jeff, but I agree with Derbyshire—the West IS circling the drain, and, absent some massive epiphany that affects the entire nation, it will get worse. I think there’s a ratchet effect in play: two steps forward, one step back.
I think the key is the schools. Someone said something along the line that “liberals believe most problems are complex are require the careful ministration of specially credentialed elites.” Unfortunately, the Left who run our schools, are creating a nation of sheeple who soon will be incapable of grasping the basics of liberty, good governence, and the ability to logically reason; thus, a nation ripe for leadership from that “specially credentialed elite.”
Derbyshire warns of creeping socialism. Heck, most people today really don’t grasp what he’s talking about, mainly because the curriculum has been neutered—they don’t teach civics anymore, and besides, the history of the US is replete with evil deeds, etc., etc.
Furthermore, I don’t hear anyone in the Republican party pointing out that some of the Democrats are outright Marxists, or trying to explain to the public the difference. The Republicans are not much better at running the goverment than the Deocrats.
Hell, a great bumper sticker for the next election would be “Marx or Jefferson?” with a blue donkey next to “Marx” in blue letters, and a red elephant next to a red “Jefferson.” But would anyone get it?
I give the West maybe 100 years. Creeping socialism will neuter rational discussion, while demographics (mainly hispanic immigration) blows out whatever’s left of the economy. And in the wings, nutjob Islamicism—the modern manifestation of the Germanic barbarians—will swallow it all up.
I said earlier the West needs a massive epiphany or some other life-altering event. It will also need a leader. I don’t see anyone worth following.
Yep, we’re fooked.
Bob1,
A possible, but unecessary eschatology. Lighten up on the cynicism brother! We have the values, the history and the cojones-another Charles Martel may be being born as we speak.
Have faith my friend.
The West is not undone, merely slow to wake.
I’m with Bob1. The schools are almost completely controlled by witting and unwitting Marxists, or derivatives thereof. The baloney that my kid spouts when he comes home from school is staggering. I try to leaven what he has been taught with a little common sense, but HE IS NOT LISTENING TO ME. His education is being co-opted by a false “self estem”, that basically says no matter WHAT you do or how wrong you are, you need to be PROUD of it. My roll of toilet paper is worth more than my teen age neighbor’s high school diploma.
I can’t help but see in my mind the ad from the sixties of the children in military style uniforms marching around and saluting in Soviet schools. The voice-over was: “Kruschev says that they will bury us without firing a shot” (I think it was a Goldwater ad, but am not sure).
I could never understand how a country as strong and educated as the USA could ever wind up that way. It is becoming chillingly clear since Ted Kennedy decided to stay in the Senate and eschew being a drunken gutter bum (which is exactly what he would be if his name were not Kennedy). He is the Democratic archetype of a soulless human being, fettered by neither shame, humility, nor any fealty to the truth. Only his ego and power matter to him, and screw the cost to freedom. His success at living with no responsibility (especially to the truth) has emboldened the “new” Democrats. Even thirty years ago, the current leaders of the Democratic party would have been laughed off the political scene. They would have been considered to be out of their minds.
Until we can restore common sense and decency to our schools and our children (which seems highly unlikely at this point), our free democratic republic is headed down the drain. I wish I still felt differently, but I think Bush has pushed me over the edge with this Meirs nonsense – and I do mean nonsense. I just feel totally deflated, and no longer hold out much hope that my son will live in a free society when he is my age.
The whole fucking world is literally going insane. I’m not much of a bible thumper, but I gotta wonder…
Welcome to the new millenium.
TW: movement, as in: When The Rangel talks, it is like a certain kind of biological movement.
What could be more tyrannical?
Boxer violated Condi’s personal autonomy by “disallowing” her choice of expression!
Is Boxer just pimpin’ for the Jewish vote? is she that desperate?
-Steve