Language can be difficult. I remember walking into an area at work that had just been modified. Signs on the wall proclaimed "Wet Paint". My first inclination, of course, was wrong. Remembering the unfortunate "Wet Floor" incident where attempting to follow instructions got me into trouble, I reexamined the possibilities. Maybe, just maybe, this was a warning rather than instructions. Yes, that was it. And I congratulated myself for avoiding another communication mistake. But then I noticed the smaller print under the "Wet Paint" text. It read, "Painted with pride by the Maintenance Department." Interesting. You see, normally we use paint to paint walls, but apparently the maintenance department had used a different product -- pride. I was mulling over the possibilities -- "Maybe 'pride' is a brand name for paint or maybe it was a new product similar to 'whitewash' with which to cover walls" -- when it struck me that these walls ... were white. I was horrified. These walls had been painted with white pride! How evil! And, of course, I had lapsed once again into a communication breakdown.
Despite my amusing (to me) excursions into uses and abuses of the language, we do it all the time and it's generally more serious than that. Take words like "rich" and "poor". Normally those would reference people with a lot of money and people without (respectively), but today if you use the terms they reference "people with more money than I have but wish I had" and "people who make so much more than the average person on the planet but not enough to buy basic subsistence items like a TV for every room and two cars instead of one". (I can't tell you how many "poor" people I've seen with cell phones and cable TV, so apparently those aren't some of the limiting factors of the term.)
If you are in favor of enforcing immigration laws, that translates to "racist". Of course, "racist" carries its own misguided weight. You see, only white people can be racist according to too many people who hate white people. It's like "sexist", the term applied (typically to men only) to those who are often accused of being sexist because they believe there are significant differences between men and women. I am a person who believes in and tries to live my life by biblical principles. That translates to "fundamentalist" which further translates to "dangerous religious nut job". Charity is defined now as "higher taxes". A patriot is someone who cherishes his own vision for America to the exclusion of other competing dreams for America. Or how about the term "morality"? This word has shifted from "what we think is right and wrong" to "a religious construct that has no genuine undergirdings and generally means that all behavior is okay as long as I approve of it". And so it goes.
Other terms take on their own significance. "Diversity" which simply means "variety" now means "variety in cultures, races, and genders" and beyond that has gathered its own value. It is assumed that "diversity" is automatically good and its opposite, uniformity or similarity, is a bad thing. Please, whatever you do, don't think that through.
Other terms have lost their significance. "Marriage" used to be the fundamental structure of society, the relationship in which a man and a woman joined to become a family, to reproduce, to link with other families, to tend to the family, and to shape society around this structure. Now it's "two people -- gender is irrelevant -- who 'love each other', at least for the moment, so they want to make some sort of more outspoken bond together which may or may not last and may or may not produce children." "Sexual relations" used to be the uniting of that man and that woman, a special process reserved for that relationship. People who engaged in sexual relations outside of that relationship were outside of "moral". Sex, you see, had meaning and value. Today it is a recreational event with or without emotional attachment and marriage has nothing to do with it. It's all about doing what feels good to me, you see.
We often think we're being wise by abusing the language. The "racist" who is "racist" only because he thinks that countries have the right and responsibility to control their borders is shut down easily by casting aspersions on his character without evaluating his arguments. The Christian who holds to biblical principles can be ignored as a "fundamentalist" without even thinking about whether or not she is right. We can be judgmental and intolerant of people we deem judgmental and intolerant and feel good about ourselves as being enlightened and inclusive. It all works toward removing clear thinking and toward emotionalism that allows us to live our lives by how we feel rather than thinking things through. And it's not a healthy way to go, either physically, socially, mentally, or spiritually. I would have included "morally", but we've already eliminated that meaning, right?
Postscript: For a fun and enlightening excursion into today's language, you might try visiting Dan's New World Order American Dictionary, a work in progress but a fun read.
12 comments:
As I was reading this I thought to myself "Stan's been poking around the N.W.O.A.D.. Thanks for the link.
Actually, I was musing about the problem myself because of conversations I've had and seen which then reminded me, "Danny has stuff on this, too." We're thinking along the same lines.
Stan,
Let me ask you — you don't believe that racism has, historically, and to some extent even today, been a factor in U.S. immigration policy?
You might want to argue that it's not the case today (though I would disagree and point to pertinent statistics and the truth that if you come from Cuba, you're legit, but from Mexico, you not, as well as other statistics), but seriously, historically speaking, racism has always tainted immigration and immigration policy.
The meaning of words and terms do morph over time, in some cases, in the journey, a word can come to mean almost the exact opposite. Even the examples you use, one — "marriage", you base your words on a static definition of a term that really only applied to a 150 year window (or less, depending on how granular we want to get). Marriage has denoted different things through history — it's only a modern arrangement that people married for love and "death til us part". For the bulk of human history, marriage was polygamous, women were property, and marriage practice (in cultural mores, not that love never existed) was an economic forging or bonding of familial ties.
Naum: "You don't believe that racism has ... been a factor in U.S. immigration policy?"
I'm sorry. I don't remember making that claim. I've re-read what I wrote and I still don't see where I made that claim ... or even hinted at it. The post is about the reverse concept. Here, to make this clear, let me reverse the question. You don't believe that any of U.S. immigration policy has ever been determined apart from a purely racial basis?
I'm particularly baffled by the question when you tell me that the Cubans are okay but the Mexicans are not. I'm not even clear on what the difference is racially. I do know that people from Communist countries get ahead in line over those who are coming just to make a better life, but I was not aware that either "Cuban" or "Communist" is a race.
On "marriage", you're making claims in a vacuum. The union of a man and a woman to make a family is something like a 150-year window? Very odd, since I get my definition from Genesis. Yes, aberrations have occurred throughout history. Marriage has always been for reproduction and family. It has always been the core structure of society. Polygamy has come and gone. At some points race became an issue ... or not. But from Adam and Eve the union of a man and a woman to become one (and, if you can, please tell me how this unity becomes a duality without death) has always been the case. Even without that, at no time in all of history has the union of same-sex couples been defined as "marriage" -- the latest attempt at redefining terms.
@Stan,
You said "If you are in favor of enforcing immigration laws, that translates to "racist".
Well, if the history of immigration policy is stained and tainted with the sin of racism, would not support of such measures be in some part racially inclined, also, even if their is cognitive dissonance employed or subconsciously embedded?
As far as Cuba v. Mexico on immigration, I say no further than explore history in greater detail and discover that racial concerns indeed colored U.S. immigration law throughout the nation's history.
On marriage? You get your definition from Genesis? Does that mean you are a proponent of polygamy as OT condones and sanctions? Or is it just a standard, but yet peculiar interpretation of an ancient Hebrew text that makes sense in a 20th century conservative evangelical Christian cultural context?
Regarding your claim that "at no time in all of history union of same-sex couples been defined as marriage" is untrue — granted it's not been the norm by any stretch, but there are anomalous instances where such a thing existed. Point is, it's not any more abnormal than the current concept of marriage — again, prior to last ~200 years, marriage was not in any form like it is today — people married for economic means and familial ties, state licensing not involved, women considered objects/property, etc.…
…it may be "core structure" of society, but it's been a different looking structure at various points in history and will continue to change.
"...and the truth that if you come from Cuba, you're legit, but from Mexico, you not,"
aaahhhhh and what race would be favored over what other race?
Naum: "Well, if the history of immigration policy is stained and tainted with the sin of racism, would not support of such measures be in some part racially inclined?"
Wow, that's quite a conclusion. It can only be concluded from what you say that if immigration policy has ever been tainted by racism, then the only possible conclusion is that all immigration policy is race-related. Any country that has any immigration policy is practicing racism. Any individual who claims to be in favor of any immigration policy at all, then, is lying if they claim any other motivation and is justifiably termed "racist".
Naum: "You get your definition from Genesis? Does that mean you are a proponent of polygamy as OT condones and sanctions? Or is it just a standard, but yet peculiar interpretation of an ancient Hebrew text that makes sense in a 20th century conservative evangelical Christian cultural context?"
Leaving off the quite obvious insinuation that "Anyone who argues that something is true because they read it in the Bible is an idiot" ... I'm looking ... I'm looking ... nope, don't find anything in Genesis 2 (the source of my definition) that includes polygamy in the definition. Further, "polygamy" would never be part of the definition because it is trappings, not definition. If I had a Jaguar (car) and you had a Jaguar and you took the jaguar off the hood, they would still both be rightly defined as Jaguars even though their external trappings differed. Race, polygamy, how a spouse is treated ... these things are not definitions. By the same token, at no time in the history of mankind has same-gender unions been part of the definition of marriage. And even if you (or anyone else) is happy to discard the Bible as genuine, it doesn't change the fact that according to the record the definition of marriage back then was one woman and one man becoming a unity ... which was my point.
One last point. You're arguing that "marriage" has lost its meaning. That is, the meaning that it has had is no longer the meaning and now it means something much, much broader and far less defined or even definitive. In my post, my comments on the word, "marriage" began with this statement: "Other terms have lost their significance." "Marriage" was an example of such a term. And your argument simply proves my point. It meant something else. It doesn't anymore. Thanks.
@Stan,
1. No ancient interpreter read Genesis like you are now. Polygamy was indeed sanctioned and condoned by ancient Israel as well as Judaism (well into ~5-6 centuries AD).
2. My point on marriage is that you've based your post on a "traditionalist" definition of marriage that defies historical reality on a number of important points:
(a) in foraging cultures, men/women marry 9-10 times and children just as likely to live in stepfamilies or other extended arrangements
(b) until last ~150-200 years, nobody picked their marriage mate, it was predetermined by parents and elders (do you not think that a significant change?)
(c) prior to 16th century, church accepted validity of marriage on a "witness" sans any official ceremony or state sanctioning
(d) until the late 19th century, European and American husbands had the right to physically restrain, imprison, or “punish” their wives and children. marriage gave husbands sole ownership over all property a wife brought to the marriage and any income she earned afterward. Parents put their children to work to accumulate resources for their own old age, enforcing obedience by periodic beatings. (do you not believe that to be a significant development too?)
(e) state regulation of marriage in U.S. had to do with more with preventing miscegnation — later, it morphed into a benefits accrued (mortgage decuction, etc.) mechanism
Naum,
You missed the point. You missed it entirely. You explain marriage practices that vary. I explained that they are trappings, practices, contrivances, add-ons. Look, I define marriage as the union of a man and a woman (to be brief). You talk about a) a man and a woman united repeatedly (polygamy), how the man chooses the woman (or doesn't) (arranged marriages), how the union occurs (marriage ceremonies), and how the man treats the woman. Not one of these has any bearing on the definition I supplied at the beginning. There have, I have always agreed, been variations in how marriages are worked out, how many wives a man can have, how spouses treat one another, and so on, but none of that nullifies the fundamental definition. Further, all scholars agree that child-bearing has been the common aim of marriage forever. Modern scholars argue that it is in decline today because earlier societies were largely agrarian and children were less likely to survive, so they needed lots of children to perpetuate the species and provide for the family, but they all agree that it is now different than it has always been in the past. The standard definition from historical anthropologists is something like "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring." All the components are there. Man, woman, children.
You may feel free to argue all you want about how marriage practices have varied over time, but neither history nor historians will agree with you that the definition is as variable as you suggest.
@Stan
you locked into a static definition that you believe is "universal", but I'd say a definition is turned upside down when a thing is voluntary v. compulsory, state/church sanctioned v. via human witness, etc.… …in those cases, A is not A
something with an entirely different set of "practices" and "examples" denotes an entirely different definition? no?
@Naum:
No.
(And you continue to make my point that "marriage" has lost its meaning.)
Ahh, the problem of language. Thanks Stan!
Post a Comment