Consider the word “liberal.” Nowadays, in America, calling one’s self a liberal conveys certain information with regard to political and social beliefs. Average folks in normal conversation will have a pretty consistent understanding of what the word means and what the label-bearer believes. That’s fine, that’s the point of labels – they’re a form of short-hand used in lieu of a long-winded explanation. The same holds true for countless other labels, including (in the political realm) labels such as “conservative,” “environmentalist,” “libertarian,” and so forth. Individuals may differ on particular issues from the presupposed norms associated with those labels (e.g. a pro-choice conservative or a pro-life liberal), but labels aren’t ever going to be perfect.
I started this essay with the word “liberal” because that particular label has changed dramatically from its use in the first century-plus of America’s existence, and because there are some who want to roll back the linguistic evolution it has gone through. That earlier use is now covered by the phrase classical liberal, which evokes a drastically different relationship between individuals and government than that which the modern usage does. I think those folks who think they can take the word back are spitting in the wind, and I don’t number myself among them. Language evolves, words change their meaning over time, some words fall out of common use, other words enter the vocabulary. This is acknowledged by the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) continual addition of new words.
The evolution of the word “liberal” from its classical form to its modern usage is fertile ground for mischief-making in political discourse, but politics is a dirty business and people routinely strive to bend even the slightest vaguenesses to their advantage. That’s OK. The marketplace of ideas shouldn’t be regulated, and language should move as culture does. Intellectual honesty calls for acknowledging that words’ meanings change over time, and that if we want to understand a phrase written or uttered a couple hundred years ago, we must go by what the words in that phrase meant at that time. This is, of course, the argument in favor of originalism I wrote about a few months ago, but what’s of more interest to me today is the idea of language evolution itself and how or even whether it should be managed.
As I noted, OED keeps up with changes in language. OED’s authority or authoritativeness on the subject is rooted in a combination of longevity and reputation, with the latter being of critical value in a free society. Contrast this with the approach the French take.
The final, state sanctioned authority on the French language is the Academie Francaise, an organization founded nearly 400 years ago and whose annual dictionary is considered “official” by the government. The Academie’s 40 members (dubbed “immortals”) are lifetime appointees. When one dies, the remaining 39 choose a successor. They decide what words mean and what their proper use is. They are unelected, they are not subject to competition – in short, they’re autocrats, and French is an autocratic language, tightly controlled by people who answer to no one but themselves.
There’s another language that’s tightly controlled by autocrats: Newspeak. Newspeak is, of course, fictional, and its purpose was to control thought. I’m not accusing or even suggesting that the Academie Francaise has any ill intent or malevolent purpose in its efforts or mission, but the mere fact that the language of France isn’t permitted to naturally evolve suggests a correlation with the strong predilection to statism that the French people have. After all, if the very language the people speak is subject to the “final authority” of a small group of unelected solons, why would we be surprised that they are comfortable with and desirous of government control over the rest of their lives.
The English language is not subject to such authoritarian control, of course. It evolves as it will, and OED’s efforts are acknowledgment rather than management. While it is true that making it into OED adds a certain element of authenticity to a word, if OED strayed too far away from acknowledgment and over towards management, its reputation would suffer and the deference to its authority that people (willingly) give would suffer. Market forces regulate OED, just as they do everything else not under external control. Furthermore, I suspect that an effort to institutionalize OED or create a language agency such as the Academie Francaise in the US might actually run afoul of the First Amendment.
This seems to make some people unhappy. These folks don’t like certain words, and I’m not just talking about racial epithets. Just as one example of many, consider the movement against what they deem “ableist” language. Consider the examples cited in the HuffPo story:
- The economy has been crippled by debt.
- You’d have to be insane to want to invade Syria.
- They’re just blind to the suffering of other people.
- Only a moron would believe that.
Apparently, we are supposed to refrain from using the words crippled, insane, blind, and moron, even in allegorical usages that have nothing to do with people, because they may be hurtful to those with disabilities. Take particular note of the dynamics of this demand. The demanders are not individuals who are disabled (excuse me, “differently abled”), but rather white middle-class college students, in all probability, who are acting on behalf of those differently-abled folks who themselves have been told that they should take offense at such uses of such words. They’re third parties who are seeking, by trying to wield social pressure as a means of force, to assume stewardship of the English language the way the Academie Francaise stewards the French language.
They are abetted by the broader segment of the population who don’t go quite this far, but nevertheless feel that the First Amendment doesn’t protect or shouldn’t protect hateful language such as racial epithets.
The common element in this is, of course, control. Control over others, and not just over others’ words. If language is controlled, so is thought. If thought is controlled, dissent becomes more difficult, and the controllers don’t have to justify their actions or seek approval from those they control. It’s all part of the march towards authoritarianism and autocracy, where we no longer have a say in how we live our lives.
As many have noted in recent years, George Orwell’s 1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters