“A
spade, a spic, a kike, and a wop walk into a bar.”
No.
Wait. Scratch that. This isn't going to end well. Let me start
again and find a different way to introduce my subject. Dysphemisms
make for a bad start.
-
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
“When I use a
word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just
what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'”i
That's better.
When
we speak (or write) we communicate using words. And that, by itself,
is a very complicated process. It involves not only a speaker and a
listener, but the words themselves, and their meaning. And their
meaning, or at least their planned meaning, derives from the intent
of the speaker.
But
their understood meaning is determined by the listener.
One
way to explain the difference is by a lesson I learned when I was
young. It consisted of the idea that when a non-Jew told a Jewish
joke it was evidence of anti-semitism. That wasn't always the case,
but whatever the intended meaning, it was understood by the (Jewish)
listener to be a slur. While that understanding was usually correct,
it was not invariably so. When the same joke was related by a Jew,
however, it was funny.ii
An
analogous truth relates to other words. Nowadays it's “the N
word.” Whereas “nigger,” when used by a white, is understood
to be evidence of prejudice, when used by a black in a conversation
among blacks it may be neutral.iii "People of color" is acceptable, though never "colored people."
But even that overlooks some of the other misuse of language.
But even that overlooks some of the other misuse of language.
According to Turkish
Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, "For us, Hamas is not a terror
organization; it has never committed any act of terror." But
that was not Ankara's first sleight-of-hand for an entity that vows
to kill every last Jew on earth. President Erdogan has repeatedly
described Hamas militants as "freedom fighters."
iv
As
the saying goes, “One man's terrorist is another man's freedom
fighter.” Words mean different things to different people. Or,
perhaps, this illustrates a fourth meaning of a word – the one that
a listener wants to convey as his understanding, even if it's not.
Perhaps PM Davutoglu understands “terror” as most other people
do, but he wishes to make a political statement. Notwithstanding our
own President's avoidance of the terminology, Muslim extremism
exists.v
Discounting
the political, however, where a conscious effort is made to use words
to convince the listener of a “truth,” our words are generally an
unconscious part of what we say and, for the most part, reflect
unconscious ideas, often colored (that's probably a bad choice of
words), rather than premeditated slights. I don't mean to suggest
that everyone would prefer to be unbiased and sensitive to the
feelings of others. That, sadly, is not the case. But more often,
ill thought-out comments reflect a lack of thought rather than a
plan. We live in an age of speed, of rapid response, of short
attention spans. We do not take the time to craft everything
carefully. We express our thoughts thoughtlessly – without
refining or filtering them. We pay too little attention to meaning –
to what is explicit and to what is implicit. And words hurt.vi But
don't blame them. They're not really the problem. It's us. It's
what we do to them.
The
common response in the last few decades has been to accept the use of
euphemisms and coded speech, and to avoid any word or idea that may
be “painful” to the hearer. In all likelihood, however, it is more
painful to the advocate of euphemisms than to the object of his pity.
The person who is blind knows he is blind, not “visually
impaired.” And to call someone who cannot walk “differently
abled,” rather than disabled, is most generously viewed as
condescending. The problem is not with the words nor, usually, with
the audience. Even when the speaker is “sensitive” and words are
carefully chosen – even when politically correct language is used to spare their feelings
– people usually understand what is said.vii
The
problem is not simply what people mean, for all-too-often people
haven't even thought about what they mean. The problem is mean
people. A limit on free discourse by the prohibition of “hate
speech” will not solve the problem. It will only lead to even
greater misunderstanding complicated by the restraint of all of our
constitutional rights.
The
problem with our society is our society. Our moral standards, as
reflected in the news media, on television and in the movies, are
less restrictive than in the past. We assume that all politicians
are crooks and we don't trust our government. We can't anticipate
any legislative answer.
And
laws cannot end prejudice any more than Prohibition ended alcohol
consumption. Perhaps the solution is education or time. More likely
it is a problem that will never be solved except by our understanding
of it, and our rejection of its practitioners. There will always be
prejudice by those who feel inferior or put upon – people looking
for an excuse for their own inadequacies. The only answer is the
marginalization of those people by the rest of us, rather than
efforts to limit their words. Their ideas may be abhorrent, but let
them give themselves away.
Next
episode: “Nota Bene 4”
– Your turn.
I Through
the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, Lewis Caroll, 1871
ii Actually,
it wasn't always funny. Some of the jokes were just plain bad. But
they (usually) weren't anti-semitic.
iii The
Oxford English dictionary describes the term as “usually
contemptuous,” “[e]xcept in Black English vernacular, where it
remains common.”
iv Excerpt
from Hamas in Turkey:
“Humanitarian
Activity”
by Burack Beckdil, Gatestone Institute, March
6, 2015. Cited
in CIJR Isranet Daily Briefing, March 12, 2015.
v Ignoring
reality doesn't make it cease to exist.
vi Actually
that “truism” is false. Words don't hurt, people do. (This is
not a Second Amendment argument about guns, but a different point
which I'll make shortly.)
vii Intent
usually can be determined by content and context – not by
vocabulary.
viii If
anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.