Here's a word for you: Erosion. It's the gradual wearing away of something. We normally think of erosion in terms of water and soil or something like that. Typically, the term also requires that the material that is worn off the primary surface gets moved to another place. That, I think, is a fairly reasonable description of the English language.
Take, for instance, the word, "charity". In the King James Bible it is a word for love. But that has moved off from a general affection to mean the generous actions to aid the poor and sick. It has its roots in the word that means "caress" or "cherish", but, of course, we've managed to move it off to "do nice things ... regardless of motivation."
But, that's okay, right? Because we still have the word, "love". Or do we? Certainly "let's make love tonight" has little to do with the sentiment of warm affection we recognize as love and almost nothing at all to do with the description we have in 1 Corinthians 13. And while it's true that the phrase is a singular usage, it is still a fact that a large number of people see "love" and "sex" as intertwined and inexorably linked. This, of course, is problematic for me because, while I certainly love my wife, I also love pizza ... and my kids. So "love" gets a bit murky, doesn't it?
But lots of words are eroding in the English language. "Marriage" used to mean "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" (according to Mirriam-Webster). Dictionary.com agrees: "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." However, the term doesn't mean that today. It means more like "any close or intimate association or union." Thus, "marriage" could refer to a male and female who pledge "'til whatever doth us part" or two guys who promise "we'll be close for awhile at least" or the blend of the lyrics of Ira Gershwin with the music of George Gershwin. In other words, we've discarded "opposite sex", "union", and any serious sense of commitment or family. So is there any wonder when the younger generations question the relevance of "marriage" anymore?
There was a time when a "computer" was the guy who did the math. It used to be that you started a fire with a faggot, but don't try suggesting it today. I remember when "gay" was "merry" or "cheerful", when "happy ending" referred to the pleasant outcome of a story, and "making love" meant performing those acts which engender warm feelings. "Queer" didn't used to be a label of pride, but a reference to an oddity. I remember when "bitch" referred to a female dog with puppies. "Awesome" once included a sense of dread -- a component of fear -- but now it's just totally awesome, dude. There is a vast difference between God as awesome and "we had an awesome vacation." "Really? What was so scary about it?" is not likely a question that would occur. Referring to a child as "precious" doesn't usually mean "valuable", but "cute". And when did "self-image" give way to "self-esteem"? I used to have intimate friends, but "intimate" now has unavoidable sexual connotations. So does "intercourse", although once it simply meant "communication or dealings between individuals or groups."
Sure, sure, the language is not a dead language. The meanings will migrate. Okay, fine. Still, why is it that they migrate away from their original content without leaving their original content? What word can I use today to designate what once was a "marriage"? I guess I can use "happy" instead of "gay", but why should I have to, and why did that word get stolen? And, seriously, why do so many words and phrases get coerced from their harmless, pleasant intent to a more sinister, sexual use? It used to be when the lady of the house had a grand affair, it was a wonderful party. Now it's a prelude to a nasty divorce. When did a baby's warm footwear become a reference to a woman's posterior?
Is it a conspiracy? Not human, I'd guess, if it is. It does seem suspicious, however, when so many words that once meant positive moral things have been subjugated to mean base things. It does raise questions when "bad" now means "good" and "wicked" is really cool. At some point, I fear, we'll end up, in the realm of describing moral things, at a loss for words.
24 comments:
"Nice warm baby footwear! Mmm, mmm..." I'll have to try that (on my wife, of course). It took me about 10 seconds to get that one, but it made me smile.
Good post. Sort of tragic, but true.
I have a friend who loves to play the game. He would be out on a trip with the wife and kids and drive past a man-made lake. "Oh, look," he'd proclaim, "a dam lake!" His wife would give him a surprised look and he'd point to the dam. And, of course, he wouldn't be done with that. "I wonder what they do with all that dam water?" "Do you suppose you have to have a dam cup to drink it?" Walking the line, man ...
I don't get the baby's warm footwear.
Anyway, the whole thing is that words are power, and whoever controls their meaning wields said power. I addressed the issue of how "homosexual" became a noun quite a while back
http://sanityinanupsidedownworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/words-are-power.html
My point was that we need to regain control of the meaning of words.
"Baby's warm footwear" = "booties".
And while I (obviously) share your concern about the power of words, I'm not entirely sure how we would go about regaining control of the meaning of words.
Booties!!!! That's funny. That's a term I have heard very rarely, and it has always been by a black person.
As for taking back the language, I refuse to use the word "gay" or "homosexual" to describe the person. I call them "homophile."
I don't use "African-American" - like Cain, I say "black American." There is no such place as "Africa-America."
When it comes to someone having an "affair," I like Monk's term - "sex affair."
You're obviously (and probably blessedly) not up on modern society. A "booty call" is a very common term.
While I agree with you in not surrendering terms, it doesn't really help. "Taking control" isn't really possible. If I refuse to use their word "gay" and use it for what it originally meant, they won't understand me. If I choose to use "homosexual" to reference a sexual activity, they will think I'm referring to a "lifestyle" or even a "birth condition". It takes two sides to "take control" of the language -- the transmitter and the receiver. If we aren't using common "code", the messages don't take place.
On your "sex affair" comment, it reminded me of something quite stunning last night. My wife was watching Wheel of Fortune. One of the contestants was a "stay-at-home dad" watching his two (three?) kids while their mother worked. "So I suppose you're married," the host asked. "No. We're not." Stunningly, the host asked, "So, how much money do you have to win to marry the mother of your children?" Really? Can he say that?
Stan,
Probably the most powerful word I have heard on this was from Ravi Zacharias in one of his lectures at a high-level University. He drew it back to the garden when God gave Adam the job of naming things. He then went on to talk about the Tower of Babel and how God confused the people's language. He funneled all that down with the correspondence theory of truth and said that changing the language is an attempt to change reality, to usurp and announce autonomy to re-assign the truth. In effect, to play God by defining reality. It is point that bears serious thought.
Why are we not OK with the "classical" or "antiquated" definition of marriage for a more "progressive" understanding? Because we are attempting to play God and change reality, that's why.
It's a very serious business. Thanks for keeping it in the forefront of our minds.
Jeremy's comment is spot on. That is to say, that some changes in word usage is definitely intentional, or at least their continued usage is. The intention is to change perceptions. I don't know how "faggot" came to be used as an alternative to homosexual, but note how it is considered by those who push the agenda-that-doesn't-exist to be comparable to some of the worst things a person could utter in public. Promoting the word "gay" is meant to put a positive spin on the lifestyle. So one word is categorized negatively in order to demonize those who might use it, making them out to be worse sinners then they are, and the other word is meant to promote the lifestyle as a positive and good thing.
This is not to say that anyone got together and by committee set out to make this so. But it has come to this and not without help.
This is not the case with all changes in meanings of words, obviously. But it certainly happens. Just look at how raising taxes is now termed as "investment".
The problem with words that I see is the shift of values. Using the word "bad" or "sick" to describe "good" is a radical shift of values. "Gay" is another example. One that I find fascinating is "queer". The community itself likes to use this term to describe itself. "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" was the name of a show that I never saw about how a self-identified homosexual can assist a self-identified heterosexual in fashion or the like. Notice the twists in values in the terms. There is no doubt that "queer" and "straight" are used self-consciously in opposition. "Queer" is defined as "strange, bizarre, twisted, deviating from the norm". (Is that a blatant admission of being a deviant?) "Straight" means "not crooked, uniform in direction". So self-identifying as "deviant" and contrasting with "not crooked" clearly states the condition ... but are now intended to mean "perfectly acceptable but different" and "just another lifestyle not like ours". A radical shift in values in the use of words.
The more time I spend reading and interacting with folks who disagree, it seems like the biggest area of contention is definitions. As long as one side gets to define the terms of the discussion, the other side(s) can be easily marginalized. In a way it is similar to your post on pejoratives.
"Queer" was initially used, if I'm not mistaken, by bigots intent on finding epithets to denigrate and demonize our gay brothers and sisters. Not a word "chosen" by the gay community willingly. But, once it became used by hateful bigots and became more mainstream, many in the gay community attempted to defuse its power by adopting it themselves.
Not dissimilar, it seems to me, to a fella long ago taking one of society's words that was associated with most evil folk and TWISTING it deliberately to make folk look at it anew.
"Take up your cross [where scum and filth and rebels were killed], and follow me," that fella said, INVITING folk to deliberately take up that symbol of sin and willingly take it on themselves.
Sinister stuff, that, some might say.
I'm with you. I've always held that we are often two people separated by a common language. Throw in "Christianese" and it really gets sticky. You think we're talking the same language when we say "faith", "atonement", "justification", "salvation", or even "Christian", and then it turns out that they mean something completely different by the common terms than you do.
The community itself likes to use this term to describe itself.
I'd hope you would issue a clarifier to point out that the term "queer" came from conservative bigots who wished to denigrate gay folk, not from the gay folk themselves, at least not initially.
Here, it SOUNDS like you're joining in the demonizing yourself, seeming to suggest that THEY are part of the "sinister" ones who are twisting words for devious reasons, rather than just responding to epithets from more conservative folk, who were the ones who started this particular use of the word.
Again, just a plea for some objective decency.
"Queer" means "strange," "odd," "unusual," etc. It certainly describes homosexual behavior!
Oh, and by the way Dan: It is NOT bigotry to be against homosexual behavior any more than it is bigotry to be against fornication or adultery.
Glenn...
It is NOT bigotry to be against homosexual behavior any more than it is bigotry to be against fornication or adultery.
It is bigotry, by definition, to want to deny rights to one group that you give to others.
Bigotry: (Merriam Webster)
the practices of a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.
It's not enough for you, Glenn, to not agree with gay behavior for yourself, you won't tolerate gay folk getting married. Their OPINIONS about how to do what's right are not tolerated by you.
It's one thing to disagree with a behavior ("I think gay behavior is good, so I won't engage in it...") that isn't bigotry. But denying others the freedom to do what they think is right because you can't tolerate the behavior IN THEM, that seems to me to very much fall into the category of bigotry.
And those who call folk slurs and epithets, well, that certainly seems to match what we call bigotry in the English language.
Or are you wanting to change the word to some new meaning to suit your needs, Glenn?
Congratulations, Dan, you just crossed the line of sanity. It is bigotry to say that homosexual behavior is a sin, but it is not bigotry to say ... oh, I don't know ... "It's wrong of you to misrepresent me!" I don't see anywhere that anyone in any of these discussions has ever said, "I think we should put an end to their right to sin!" And I have yet to see anyone here argue against their right to marry. The argument has ALWAYS been that the action is immoral and marriage has a definition which does not include a man joining in a loving and committed relationship with his dog, his house, his favorite tree (you know, a tree hugger), or his best male friend.
And calling someone by the term that they choose to use is not a "slur" or an "epithet". Unless, of course, you choose to go by the dictionary use of "epithet", which is "An adjective or descriptive phrase expressing a quality regarded as characteristic of the person or thing mentioned". Then "homophile" (Glen's version) or "queer" would be appropriate.
Don't be ridiculous, Stan. If some black folk have embraced using the N word amongst themselves, that in NO way means that it was not/is not a slur. OF COURSE it was/is a slur.
Same for the bigots who demonize folk by ugly name-calling.
As to the marriage equity thing, no, no one here has brought it up today, but if I'm not mistaken, most if not all of you oppose "allowing" gay folk the benefits and joys of engaging in a marriage relationship. Or are you in favor of allowing gay folk to marry?
Denying rights is a sign of bigotry, it seems to me. Certainly, this sort of name-calling and demonization is a sign of bigotry.
Or are you suggesting that folk calling black folk by racial slurs is not a sign of bigotry?
Let's see, condemning someone's behavior, according to Dan, is denying them rights. Wow! How illogical can you get!!!!
What I can't tolerate is homosexualists forcing me to accept their behavior as right and proper, and teaching the same to children in schools, and punishing anyone who disagrees!
So now, according to Dan, describing a behavior as "queer" is bigotry; Dan has redefined bigotry now and expects everyone to agree with his definition.
I have never, ever denied - or even taught others to deny - any civil rights to homophiles. What I do deny them is the right to redefine what marriage is. I also deny them the "right" to force their behavior to be sanctioned.
You, on the other hand, redefine what the Bible says in order to suit your apostate brand of so-called Christianity so as to give sanction, support and encouragement to homosexual behavior!
Dan, I believe, I have always believed, I will always believe that "gay folk" (as opposed to folk who are happy, merry, cheerful) should always have the right to marry. No one should be denied that right. But, of course, you define the word differently. And I'm pretty sure that you would deny that right to people such as polygamists, that cat lady who wants to marry her favorite tabby, or the car enthusiast I read about that wished to wed his favorite automobile. Bigot!
And, let's keep in mind, if "bigot" is defined as "demonizing folk by ugly name-calling", I suspect we'll need to ask questions about the use of pejoratives like "hunch", "right wing", "fundamentalist", "narrow-minded literalists" ... shall I continue? So, on two fronts, perhaps the pot ought to be careful about the terms he applies to the kettle.
The difference, Stan, is my usage of those terms are descriptors, with no intent to belittle or demonize.
Your opinions ARE objectively YOUR HUNCHES. There is no denigration of anyone in that term. It's just a word, rightly used. "Right wing," I use as a way to describe those on the right-ish/conservative side of things and I mean no harm by it, and I see no harm in it, any more than calling someone Left wing.
These are descriptors, not slurs.
There's a difference, my friend.
Okay, so it's not bigotry (your word) if you can find an excuse for it, but it is bigotry if someone is expressing an opinion of the morality of a particular activity with which you disagree. All clear. Got it. Thanks. Of course, when "people like me" use terms like "liberals" or "progressives" or when Glen uses the term "homophile", that is bigotry. Pot, meet kettle.
And you apparently didn't read my earlier post. "Hunch" is defined as "An intuitive feeling or a premonition, a suspicion, a guess". I offer reasons for my explanations, the text, the context, the language, etc. Thus, your calling it a "hunch" is saying that I'm only guessing while I'm saying that I'm reasoning through. That's pejorative. At least as pejorative as anything you've complained about when people "misrepresent" you.
Peace, my brothers. I've bothered you enough...
My apologies.
Just to be clear, I do oppose homosexuals being granted the new and invented "right" of marrying a person of the same sex. As was said, it is because marriage has a meaning and I don't believe they have the right to force a new definition upon the rest of us. At the same time, I don't oppose their right to pursue happiness, if engaging in perverse sexual relations achieves that goal. I simply won't join in the agenda that forces the perversity upon our culture through law.
Also, "queer" was/is used as a slur, but originated as an apt description of people who deviate from normal sexual behaviors. It wasn't first used as a slur. They ARE queer, just as Dan is queer in many of his beliefs. But the word "queer" became attached to one group of people, and as such also changed in a negative manner.
Post a Comment