Meditations upon Language

There is a certain frustration in not being able to express thoughts in a clear, unadulterated, perfectly understood form. This is impossible. There’s no point in whining about it, only in trying one’s best, anyway.

I run up against the limits of common language fairly often–at least once a week, if not five or ten times–when I find that there exist no words exactly suited to my purpose. A graceful word that sounds perfect given the cadence of a sentence may carry an unwieldy baggage of political connotations, or the word that perfectly expresses a particular notion may be grammatically awkward and ungainly. I generally aim to both produce pleasant writing and avoid overly-charged political language, but there are times when this is impossible. Ethnonyms are particularly prone to politicization. Should I refer to the nomadic or formerly nomadic descendants of Indians who’ve lived in Europe for several hundred years as “Gypsies” or “Roma”? “Inuit” or “Eskimo”? “Indians” or “Native Americans”? For each of these, you can find members of the relevant group who prefer Term A and dislike B, and members who, likewise, prefer Term B and dislike A. And no matter which term you pick, someone out there will assume that you are making a political statement about those people.

Heck, I used to know a man who preferred to refer to himself as a “Negro.”

In general, I try to stick with the most commonly known term; if two terms are equally known, I tend to use both. “Roma” I assume is fairly obscure, whereas “Native American” is clear, if clunky. (“Indian,” while actually the term a small majority of Indians preferred last time I checked, has the unfortunate confusion factor.) But there are times when innovation could be useful. “POC,” for example, is a mere three letters long and well-known. But it is severely tainted by politics, making it unsuitable for anything attempting even a vaguely neutral stance, or anything aimed at a non-leftist audience. Then I am left with some clunky phrasing, like “people who aren’t white.”

It would be lovely to be able to write posts that appeal to everyone, but words the left uses to distinguish its writing are anathema to the right, words used on the right are likewise anathema to the left, and neutral territory is generally regarded as simultaneously inadequately right and left.

Moderatism is possible, but neutrality is nigh impossible, whether I want it or not. So posts have their audiences, and the language selected accordingly, along with a heavy dose of my own bloody-mindedness, with the inevitable result that the language will never be perfect.

For example, Nick B. Steves recently expressed dissatisfaction with the use of the word “fascism” to denote generically authoritarian regimes in the post, “Increasing Diversity => Fascism.” I agree that “fascism” is really an unideal word. Unfortunately, “Increasing Diversity => Lots More Laws” or “Increasing Diversity => More Authoritarian Regimes” just doesn’t have the same cadence, and makes for an awkward title. (Also, the post was originally composed as a direct response to the sorts of people who’d inspired it.)

(There are those who argue that one should not write with an audience in mind, but that writing should instead be some sort of pure emanation of your soul/id/creativity/whatever. This is bollocks. All language exists in order to communicate something between the sender and the receiver, whether that be spoken language or written language. If I wanted to write something where the intended audience is just myself, I could, and I would write it in my diary and keep it there instead of posting it on the internet. Once something is put out there, it exists to convey a message to someone outside of myself, and therefore needs to be able to do so. If it cannot, then I have failed.)

I try to aim for an “intellectual but friendly” tone, but the tone has changed over time, which occasionally leads to confusion, especially if posts get shuffled around in the schedule. “Once a Political Position Becomes Popular, it has already won,” is one such post. Attempting coherence:

Mainstream political positions change over time. For example, the majority of people once opposed gay marriage, but now the majority support it. Two hundred years ago, being pro-slavery was a fairly mainstream political position, while believing in full racial equality was far outside the mainstream. Today, these positions have reversed.

People who are advocating a political position that is gaining popularity but not yet dominant or has not yet won all of its objectives often get very worked up about the fact that any vestiges of opposition remain, leading to increasingly strident demands that everyone need to toe the line and fall-in with the new position.

Of course, in a world with more than one person in it, there will always be someone who disagrees about something; in a country with 300+ million people, you can find tons of people who disagree with you! You can even find people who think they’re telepathically communicating with the CIA. The mere existence of people who disagree with a position does not mean it is not dominant.

How do we know whether a position that only a minority of people agree with is “winning”, in the sense of becoming steadily more dominant?

Look at who is advocating the position. Movie stars, popular musicians, Cathedral leaders and the “popular” people, at school and on the internet. Thought leaders shape and influence other people’s opinions; people want to look and act like elites.

People often make a big deal out of how brave they are for taking a popular position. There has been nothing particularly “brave” about being pro-gay rights for the past two or three decades; no one has been sued for being willing to bake a gay cake. Neither is Caitlyn Jenner “brave.” It is taking the opposition position that has cost people jobs, freedom, and money.

—-

Sometimes the problem is long-windedness increasing the noise:signal ratio. “Transsexuals Prove that Gender is Real,” may have been one such post. The TL; DR version:

1. The idea that “sex is biological, gender is a social construct” is bollocks. Sex=gender.
2. All trans people I have known in real life have obvious chromosomal or hormonal conditions leading to improper gender development.
3. I suspect this is true of the majority of trans people.
4. Trans people don’t actually act on the radical feminist claim that gender is some random, made-up thing invented by the patriarchy to oppress women. Rather, they pick a gender and then try to actually live like it.
5. Note that this does not require you to agree that a trans person “is” a particular gender; it is merely asserting that they are trying to live as one.

I’m sure there have been some other things that were unclear or inelegantly or improperly worded, though I can’t think of them off the top of my head.

In the meanwhile, have a lovely day.