There's A Word For It

When we got the comic book home we devoured it. It had cost ten cents, a significant piece of change for us at the time, and we weren't going to miss a thing. It was good guys against bad – supergood versus superbad. There was no subtlety. Sure the girls read comic love stories, but they weren't very subtle either. And superheroes were mostly for the boys anyway. Archie and Jughead, Betty and Veronica, provided some of the laughs.

Sometimes we sat on the floor in the back of the candy store as we read them; sometimes we devoured them on the subway train. Our parents weren't thrilled by the idea, but we were reading. It wasn't all bad. Especially considering some of the other, less civilized, activities of youth about which they read in the newspapers. They urged us to do our homework before reading the comics, but they knew we'd read them sooner or later.

After all, they read the comics also. They were in the newspaper and could be better hidden – even when they were in public. But no adult would read a comic book on the subway. It was evidence of childish ignorance and fantasy.

It's different now. Now there are comic books for adults. We've made them acceptable and you now see people (usually women) reading them on the subway.

What accounts for this change in behavior? Well, it doesn't hurt that they're the size of pocket books and look less like the childrens' variety. Nor that they're a little less subtle and a little more “sensitive.” They also cost more which puts them in the adult range.

But the real reason for their newfound popularity is that they're no longer “comic books.” Sure they may look like them, but they're “graphic novels.” That's all it takes. Now it doesn't sound like something for kids. They're adult fare. It's just a commercial application of something we've been doing for years. We think that words govern the nature of matter – that words matter.

Well, they do. It's not far-fetched. Consider the Sapir-Whorf (or Whorf-Sapir – it depends on whom you read) Hypothesis. Their view was that if there's no word for a particular concept, you can't really think about it. So, they conclude, the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view. Perhaps you suffer from yokomeshi. You'll never know. Perhaps when you try to speak Japanese you get anxious. Still you'll never realize that you're not alone and there's a particular syndrome of stress induced by trying to speak a foreign language (and the Japanese have that particular word for it). So you just suffer through Spanish and Russian classes without knowing why you're nervous. Or, perhaps, you felt satisfaction, when your neighbor's prior success went down the tubes. It's actually Schadenfreude, an ailment from which we all suffer – or which we all enjoy. And the shades of meaning of unfamiliar concepts in unknown languages is one of the main causes of yokomeshi for translators, though they view our discomfort with Schadenfreude.

Words do mean something. But it may not be what we think. They're flexible. They change over time. So “nice,” which is derived from nescio, the Latin word for the idea of not knowing – ignorance – is now more positive. I suspect that at one time a “nice distinction” was one without a difference, but now it's one that makes an important point. Quite the opposite. Over the millennia, “nice” has gone from a pejorative to a word of praise and compliment.

That, however, is evolution. Revolution takes place as well. It may be the invention of new words and phrases that takes place with slang, but there may be more sinister intent. Thus Orwell, in 1984, introduced the use of “Newspeak,” which both limited the meanings of words and, sometimes, gave them connotations, opposite to what we understood them to be. Or, as with “blackwhite,” contradictory meanings depending on the circumstances.

Readers, though, understood Orwell's intent and the word usages. It was all part of a story. It was imaginary even if it was threatening. But we've gone further, by changing the meanings of words to rid our language of ideas we don't like – and it's not fiction. We use euphemisms to disguise ideas that may “offend” others. (Actually, most of the time we're the ones offended. Not those we claim to protect.) We no longer have “retarded” children. They're “special” now. For a while they were “slow learners,” but even that was too harsh. There was a time when some children were diagnosed with “minimal brain dysfunction,” MBD, but parents didn't want their offspring so labeled – partly because it reflected on the kids, and partly because it suggested that they may have passed on a defect to them. With a change in the label – though no change in the cause – the process not only became acceptable, but was accepted with joy as a justification for a variety of problems. Indeed, ADD, attention deficit disorder (or ADHD which often accompanies it, especially in boys), is in fashion and over-diagnosed, to the great benefit of the drug companies.

Having noted the scent of “hurtful” words, we now smell them everywhere, whether or not they are present. “Niggardly” is misunderstood to be derived from the “N word” (we shudder to go beyond the first letter – to spell out what we think) even though there is no relationship between them, and the idea of “trigger” words and “microaggressions” is limiting our right of free speech, especially on college campuses where the exchange of ideas should take precedence over “sensitivity” and the eager adoption of ignorance rather than learning.

Our efforts to “reach out and touch somebody” have all the subtlety of a comic book graphic novel. We're sensitive to the point of non-communication. Even our superheroes have matured. It's a laugh.

September 20, 2016

Yours, Mine, And Hours

This is an essay about the Mikveh, a subject that may be unfamiliar to you, and I'll get to that presently – but first some preliminaries.

American society (actually most others as well) has changed. There was a time when the vast majority of “Western” nations were ruled by a law that was based, primarily, on the Bible. There was “good” and there was “bad,” and the rules were reasonably straightforward. Perhaps they didn't always seem “fair,” but that question wasn't really ours to decide or judge.

Eventually lines were drawn between Church and State, and, ultimately, especially with the establishment of the secular state, the whole idea of “right” – such a judgmental construct especially for those who didn't accept theological definitions – was supplemented and, in many respects, superseded by “Rights” which were assigned by the State. These rights were often based on “right” and “wrong” as viewed through the lens of fairness, with “fairness” determined by those on the ground floor – those who wrote the governing documents – and subsequently by the societies in which the new rules were applied. Indeed, cultural “norms,” fads and vogues are often the determinants of “rights.”

Most of the recently discovered rights have centered around minorities, victimhood, and sensitivity. People saw threats in words and images that were intolerable in a fair and liberal modern society, and they sought to eliminate such evil. (Apart from censorship by rulers – religious and secular – there had mainly been restrictions in the past based on what were said to be matters of national security, but in the modern cases sensitivity and fairness were more at issue.) For example, pin-up calendars, long a staple of men's lockers, were decreed to be degrading to women (along with wolf whistles) and all but outlawed. And, similarly, looking at, or otherwise paying unwanted attention to women, or men for that matter, is now considered sexual abuse.

We have also created the category of “hate crime” to show our sensitivity to victims of violence caused by those who are biased against them – usually demonstrated by voiced statements of the perpetrator, and their interpretation by the victim. Of course that might raise problems. If a prejudiced mute assaults a deaf or intellectually challenged minority member, is it a hate crime? In fact the whole idea of a “hate” crime is bizarre. If a bigot insults, and then kills, a minority member over a woman – a “crime of passion” – is it a “love” crime? All crimes are “hate” crimes. If I'm mugged it's the action, not the thought, that angers me. Frequently attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. among others is the aphorism concerning the right to swing your arms ending at the other man's nose. The reason for swinging is irrelevant.

A more recent concern – and this will get me to my main point – is the ruling in many jurisdictions that transgender individuals may use whatever rest room they choose. Sexual restrictions based on birth are biased, and take away the self definition rights of the individual – the right to choose his/her/their/its own self-image. Rest rooms should be gender neutral and everyone should have the right to use whatever facility seems more comfortable (as long as there are no pin-up calendars). Actually, money could be saved by only having a single facility.

But what has all this to do with the Mikveh? In fact, what is a Mikveh?

According to Jewish law it is necessary, before engaging in certain ritual and family actions, to be “pure.” Impurity may arise from a variety of different situations such as (in addition to others) contact with the dead, menstruation, and particular kinds of oaths. The Mikveh is a ritual bath where such purification can take place. The process is also a basic part of conversion, and the new convert is made ritually pure during the ceremony.

The ritual of Mikveh, therefore, is one which may involve both men and women, but the reality is that purification following menstruation is the most frequent situation in which it is used. Thus the facility is reserved for women during most of the hours it is open, but there are times set aside for men who may wish to use it. Separation of the sexes – especially in a situation like this when the involved individual is completely disrobed – is a feature of Judaism. So there are strict schedules governing the Mikveh's use.

There was a recent scandal in the Jewish community when it was learned that a rabbi had been spying on women who were using the facility. Voyeurism has long been an affliction of mankind (literally – “man” is usually the sex of the culprit) however this particular disclosure was considered especially heinous because of who was involved and where it had taken place. But perhaps we overreacted.

While there are traditions in Judaism of modesty and privacy, there are no explicit prohibitions of voyeurism in the Torah, so however we may feel about it personally our revulsion lacks Biblical support. (Indeed, while we condemn certain sexual unions, and while we reject violence that is unassociated with the control of evil or the service of G-d's will, “sexual abuse” is not specifically forbidden. Maybe it's a good thing. Or maybe that's going too far.)  So perhaps the best solution to the problem is to open the Mikveh to all people at all hours.

One thing is certain. The fewer taboos there are on sex, and the more familiar we are with, and thus immune to, the bodies of our sisters and brothers, the less interesting the whole topic of sex will be to the evil-minded among us. Of course it will also be less attractive to the rest of us. Maybe the old days were better.

All Men (And Women)

“[A]ll men are created equal ...” That's what it says. That's what the Declaration of Independence says. Very few people really believe it, but that's what it says. Nonetheless, many assume this means that all their ideas are equal – and equally valid – though apart from its expressions of equality, all the other writings of the Founding Fathers are out of date. Consistency is not one of their strong points.

The bases for their disenchantment with the founding documents (apart from those aspects that are politically correct) are that times change and also that traditions vary in different places and among different people.

Chalk it up to moral relativism.

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

There was a time in our history and there were places in our own country when slavery was considered acceptable and, among some, virtuous. While a significant degree of prejudice remains, slavery is gone – at least in the United States and in most other countries. By such a definition as the one above, however, slavery was no less “privileged” then than freedom. In fact, it was probably more appropriate.

Similarly appropriate by such standards were child sacrifice among the Aztecs (and other civilizations), the burning of wives on the funeral pyres of their husbands, cannibalism, “honor” killings, female genital mutilation, Nazi eugenics and experimentation on prisoners, and a host of similar horrors. I shouldn't have said “horrors” since this suggests a rejection of the traditions of others. It suggests an acceptance of the heresy of “absolutes.” (True as that may be, admitting it is viewed nowadays as jingoism and bias, so don't quote me.) But all these acts were in keeping with the societies in which they existed.

For the last half century, therefore, we have taught our children – and we have convinced ourselves – that there is no such thing as absolutism. Our mantra has been “Live and let live.” Viewing the practices of others in the light of our own morality is judgmental and unethical. Indeed, we have made a point of exposing our children to the practices of others and sometimes espousing them. Ethnocentrism merits condemnation. So we have sacrificed history in favor of equal representation. Or greater representation of the unfamiliar – even if by doing so we create a new mythology. It is the affirmative action of pedagogy. Our own culture and traditions are of less consequence. There is more “truth” to the views of those uninvolved in world history than there is in the relating of what actually happened.

We have been brainwashed into believing that what happened as a result of “colonialism” should be minimized and that the stories of the “oppressed” are more important for us to learn. Thus our children are educated to be embarrassed by our own story (when they are actually exposed to it), and both texts and tests emphasize the virtue of other cultures, while subtly condemning our own. And all of this is taught at a level that will be understandable to everyone. We do not seek the highest truth, but the lowest common denominator. We serve the pablum of “feel-good” exposition rather the pabulum of honest evaluation. And we are left with a generation (and probably more to follow) of our youth and academic communities tainted by the guilt of their forebears.

We have become a nation in which sense is of less consequence than “sensitivity,” and everyone gets a certificate of achievement. Everyone is equal. All ideas are valid. We are all winners. There are no losers.

Except for truth, our society, and our future. They are the big losers.

Next episode: “Condemned” – Those were the days, my friend.

Watch Your Language

                                                      

The battle over euphemisms and politically correct speech is all but over – to the detriment of free speech,ⁱ the English language,ⁱⁱ the United States and its citizens,ⁱⁱⁱ and common sense. Saying the “correct” thing, even if it's not accurate, is much more highly regarded than saying the “wrong” thing, even if that's what you believe and that's what is true. Our current culture places a higher value on sensitivity than saying what's on your mind. Being right is less important than being correct.

But apart from self-censorship and acceptance of the whims of society, there are a number of language changes that somehow have become embedded in our legal system. “Marriage,” for example, which most dictionaries describe as “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife,”^iv now has a secondary definition based, in some areas, on the legislature and the courts. Thus, the OED^v now includes in its definition “(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex.”^vi The definition, therefore, depends on where you are. That's not unusual. Language varies depending on time and place. But the variation generally reflects usage patterns rather than the law.

Similarly, the difference between “fetus” and “baby,” one with far-reaching legal implications, is a difference based on law, not science or theology. Abortion is legal, the courts tell us, even if murder is not.

But those changes and differences are not the subject of this essay.

On July 20^th, James Holmes shot a large number of people inside an Aurora, Colorado movie theater, killing twelve^vii and injuring many more. Neither he nor his attorney has denied it. "This is not a whodunit," said Craig Silverman, a former chief deputy district attorney in Denver.”^viii So the issue of what happened and the identity of the shooter are not in question.

But none of the media appears willing to say so. All of reports of the crime refer to Holmes as the “suspect” or the “accused killer,” or they speak of him as the “alleged” killer. For example, “James Holmes, theater shooting suspect, faces formal charges Monday,”^ix was the headline on the posting of WPTV, while CBS notes that “Accused Aurora Killer James Holmes Allegedly Foreshadowed Crimes.” Another headline, on ABC, boasts “James Holmes: First Video of Alleged Killer Released,”^x while the Wall Street Journal noted that the “Alleged Colorado Killer Makes Court Appearance.”^xi

It's not hard to understand what's happening. This crime is not the only example of this phenomenon. The media are unable – or unwilling – to distinguish between fact and motive, and they're fearful of the legal consequences of using the wrong words. Because of this fear they are unable to state the obvious – that James Holmes killed some people. They will not say so until it has been certified by the courts. Only then will the defendant be a killer rather than an “alleged killer” or a suspect. In the meantime the suspected victims, alleged to be dead, will be buried. Or, at least, reported to be so.

When killings occur in other countries, the media are not shy about identifying the killers, whether Syrian armed forces, Chechnyan nationalists, or the Sudanese government. There is no talk about an alleged genocide or accused killers or suspects in a massacre. No one will sue them in these cases. But the press has been terrified into using misleading language out of fear of the American legal system. Rather than report that Mr. Holmes killed the people, and the dispute centers around whether the killings constituted “murder,” there seems to be anxiety about whether the wrong man has been accused, even though no one has made that claim.

The English language is becoming the world's second language. It is being adopted as a means of communication even by those for whom it is not the native language. That is so not only because of the dominance of nations which speak it, but because it is an expressive and nuanced language. Unfortunately we are removing those nuances in order to meet the demands of pressure groups, our own guilt, and the threat of the law.

"The only possible defense is insanity." Craig Silverman said that of the upcoming trial of Mr. Holmes, but it would apply as well to the press coverage of the event, and to our own treatment of the words we speak.

Next episode: “Bang, Bang, Bang” – Getting our way.

i     If someone who hears you speak deems you insensitive, you may be subject not only to academic censure, but to charges of “hate” speech. The old saw, “Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you,” has been superseded by legislative and judicial outlawing of anything “offensive.” And when they develop a way to know what we're thinking ...

ii    For example, pronouns have been neutered and gender – a linguistic term – eliminated. The previously used term to designate a single individual, “he,” has been replaced by the pleural “they,” and similar changes have been made it the various forms of pronouns. Just yesterday I heard someone say, without irony, “To each their own.”

And a ship is no longer “she,” but “it.” It cannot be denied that language changes, but this wholesale imposition of the views of some on the entire language is regrettable. Apart from other considerations, the changes sound silly. And the language, itself, is impoverished by imprecision and by lack of color. Examples are numerous but these will have to do.

iii    An outstanding student – one very bright and with great potential – was once viewed as “special” and the educational system sought ways to maximize his (or her, but certainly not “their”) potential. Today the dumb and disabled (yes, I know that I'm violating all concepts of civility, sensitivity, and correct speech) are the ones we consider special and for whom we readily dispense our resources. No child, we are told, should be left behind, but our current system also ensures that no bright child will be helped to get ahead. It's no wonder that America's place among the nations educationally is falling, and that other countries are surpassing us in technical development and scientific achievement.

iv    Merriam-Webster.  

See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

v      Oxford English Dictionary.

vi       http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marriage

vii    By the time this is published the number may change.

viii    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/colorado-shooting-suspect-to-be-formally-charged-in-aurora-movie-massacre/2012/07/30/gJQAd8ukJX_story.html

ix http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/james-holmes-theater-shooting-suspect-faces-formal-charges-monday

x     abcnews.go.com/ July 22, 2012.

xi    July 24, 2012.