We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Yankee euphemisms go home!! Now this is one American import we could well do without especially as it appears to be selling rather well.
Among the distributors are Simon Jenkins who devotes his latest column in the UK Times to ‘The Untimely Death of a Liberal Generation’:
Three British liberals have died in the past few days, all before their time. Jim Thompson, Gareth Williams and Hugo Young were still in their sixties. Each was outstanding in his profession, as priest, lawyer and journalist. They cut their political teeth with the rise of the welfare state and sharpened them on the Thatcher era. They lived to see what they regarded as Thatcherism’s denouement in the Labour landslide of 1997. They are gone. Something has died with them.
I certainly hope so because, as the brief obituaries which follow make abundantly clear, these men were not ‘liberals’ they were socialists.
I don’t care if I am ploughing a lonely furrow, I am not going to stop campaigning against this gross distortion of language.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Mis-use of this term is a pet peeve of mine as well. So you are not entirely alone.
Some battles are worth fighting, others are better left to maneuver. Let them have the L-word as long as it isn’t used by polite society.
Better to stop the use of impact as a verb.
My candidate is the use of disrespect as a verb. Grown men actually do this now.
Now that I think of it there are some other much overused words:
Proactive
Solution
System
Diversity
And one particularly egregious euphemism, “fair trade.”
Funny thing is, here in America the meme is reversed.
No smoke-filled rooms, however, no no no.
Don’t worry, Rush Limbaugh has made “liberal” a term of abuse in America. The leftists, having poluted the word, are abandoning it. They are remaking themselves as “progressives”. Yet still, just an old hag in a new dress.
I often use the term (Il)liberal.
“Liberal” is a synonym for socialist today – for example the Liberal Democrats are much more left wing than Labour.
See http://libdembriefing.mysite.freeserve.com
But I don’t think “liberal” should be a synonym for socialist: however, I can see where ambiguity arises, given that Collins provides its first definition as “relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform” – and of course socialists would claim that, wouldn’t they…
I prefer its earlier incarnation as a synonym for generosity, tolerance, freedom etc.
As for previous comments, I too use “illiberal”, a fine old word; but Zathras has me foxed with his reference to “disrespect as a verb” – surely some mistake?
I think the battle to retrieve “gay” is lost: the other day I heard my mother (76) use it to refer to some homos…
Language naturally changes over time. It’s a kind of anarchy. There’s not a lot anyone can do about it. However, I think the French have all kinds of laws intended to prevent mutation of the Language and discourage creeping use of English terms. I think I’d rather put up with the loss of the odd good word than that.
In political usage liberal, like gay, is a word that has been lost forever to the euphemists. I believe it was stolen by marxists in New York sometime after WW2, and no doubt served to keep the McCarthyite threat at arms length. As with so many leftish terminologies it was taken up by the opinion-forming classes, crossed the Atlantic and the rest of us meekly got caught up in the same usage. Perhaps we have only ourselves to blame. But it’s much more fun to blame those word-stealing, thought-controlling, social engineering, lefty bastards. And as a word of opprobrium liberal is gaining in weight and punching power every day.
Sorry, David, you’re not going to get it back now.
Until quite recently, it was fair enough in a UK context to equate “liberal” with “social democratic”. From 1945-1979, the Tories and Labour had the same economic policy; the difference was Labour’s more liberal (in a ‘boosting individual freedom’) social policy.
Since then, everything has changed. The current Labour lot are economically and socially authoritarian, which mings; the current Tory party is economically liberal and (with some prominent exceptions) socially authoritarian, except when it supports economically illiberal measures for populism’s sake.
Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to evaluate Jenkins, Young, Williams and Thompson by the standards of the decades they grew up, were educated, and did much of their writing.
This essentialism about language is entirely wrongheaded. One of Popper’s excellent insights was that semantic essentialism is no bar to understanding. Talking about the meaning of words is always a distraction from the substantive issues at hand. It is nonsense best left to gimcrack casuists like Guessdworker and Tony H who like to parade their grotty little prejudices as bogus concern for linguistic accuracy.
Guessedworker,
“And as a word of opprobrium liberal is gaining in weight and punching power every day.”
I daresay that is true but I don’t like it at all. It means that when people like me talk about ‘economic liberalism’ people are more likely to switch off.
Paul,
I don’t agree with either you or Popper. Words convey meanings that build into ideas. The left realised the benefits of manipulating language and meanings a long time ago and used those very methods to build an intellectual hegemon. If you control language, you control opinions.
john b
“the current Tory party is economically liberal”
??????????????????????????????????????????
Another concept that is being stolen is “free trade”.
Free trade now means trade as regulated by the WTO, as conrasted to the natural meaning of unregulated trade.
Paul Coulam:
“One of Popper’s excellent insights was that semantic essentialism is no bar to understanding”
Maybe so, but we’re not talking about understanding, we’re talking about propaganda which is a different thing.
It is no coincidence that Bliar and his cronies describe all public spending as “investment”. The meaning is unchanged but the vibes are better. The same for “liberal”. It ‘s a good word with desirable historical resonances, whereas nobody likes a “socialist”. I agree that the battle over terminology is not a major issue, but I don’t think it is quite as trivial as you imply.
Cydonia
Cydonia,
I am beginning to think that it is a major issue, actually. Our enemies certainly do.
Particularly since they now have enemies like us.
We have rhetoric, dialectic and discourse and we know how to use them.
Cydonia and David,
Propagandists for a cause will always select the words they think will be most effectively convincing in winning supporters to their cause. A counter propagandist will get nowhere moaning that they don’t like their choice of words. When people like Tony Blair use ‘investment’ to mean state spending, people impressed by his arguments will not be moved by complaints that this is a misuse of the word ‘investment’ it is the idea of state spending, whatever it is called that needs to be attacked.
Do you really imagine that complaining that ‘Liberal Democrats’ aren’t real liberals impresses anyone who doesn’t already agree with you?
I understand that people have an attachment to particular words, but the meanings will always be subject to flux. Complaining about this is intellectually sterile, many people worried that without authority in semantics we would fall into confusion, Popper explained why this is not so. I maintain that complaints about the misuse of words is always futile, either in academic debate or propaganda, it really is stuff for the kind of blimpish, reactionary oafs who witter on about the loss of that ‘lovely old word gay’. What they want to say is that they hate gay people because they are small minded hate filled dolts, that for them is the substantive issue.
Of course I know both Cydonia and David Carr to be fine gentlemen with first rate minds and do not mean to cast such aspersion on them, this is, it seems, a point of honest disagreement between us.
Talking about the meaning of words is always a distraction from the substantive issues at hand.
I don’t know how you can have a discussion of substantive issues unless everyone has the same understanding of the meaning of the words involved.
“Three British liberals have died in the past few days, all before their time.”
Obviously they knew too much of the dealings of the secret Haliburton-Cheney-Wolfowitz oil cabal.
/Döbeln
R C Dean Writes:
“I don’t know how you can have a discussion of substantive issues unless everyone has the same understanding of the meaning of the words involved.”
There is absolutely no authority in language and appeals to such authority are therefore futile. Words are just one of the tools we use to assist us with communication. There is no authority in semantics yet understanding is possible, it is not perfect, nor can it ever be, yet humans understand each other practically very well indeed. We all know what the policies of the Liberal Democrats involve whether we agree on the meaning of the word ‘liberal’ or not.
“..the meaning of words is always a distraction from the substantive issues at hand” writes Paul Coulam, as a prelude to some ad hominem venom. Perhaps he inhabits the same dreamworld as so many on the Left, who traditionally are fond of destroying the stability of meaning as an adjunct to destroying stable society in order to impose their will.
Popper notwithstanding, semantic relativism is intellectual laziness, where it isn’t a product of ignorance and stupidity.
“When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” H.Dumpty.
And my “little prejudices” might be “grotty” but they’re mine, and I prefer them to Paul Coulam’s arrogant dismissiveness.
Paul,
At the risk of repeating myself, I think there is authority in language in terms of the meanings that are generally recognised as attaching to certain words. Thus can evil be presented to the public as good, desirable and voteworthy. By the same process opposition is demonised.
Examples abound, such as Gordon Brown referring to extortion as ‘investment’, control is called ‘caring’ and sovereignty is called ‘xenophobia’. By attaching desired meanings to words the public can be directed, bullied or shamed into acquiescing to or even supporting expansion of the state and their own oppression.
I refuse to accept that it is simply bad luck that the left have so successfully dominated the high ground of public discourse while our impact has been negligable.
Still, it is no bad thing for us to differ on tactics. Fight on all fronts, that’s what I say.
Paul:
“I maintain that complaints about the misuse of words is always futile, either in academic debate or propaganda”
I’m still not persuaded. Why isn’t pointing out that one’s opponent is abusing language not a perfectly good debating trick?
There’s a very nice example in Man Economy and State where Rothbard is attacking those on the left who justify State regulation of industry on grounds of the need to prevent monopoly. He points out that the original meaning of Monopoly (per Lord Coke) was a grant of special privileges by the STATE ! (thereby linking very nicely with the argument that it is this kind of monopoly that we should be concerned about).
I think as long as we bear in mind that pointing out linguistic abuses is just a strategy for argument, it is a valuable addition to the Libertarian propagandist armoury.
Yours in honest disagreement 🙂
Cydonia
The thing that really depresses me about this debate is that “socialists” are really deserving in some context the label of liberal as we use it.
Consider this: democratic socialists really are more liberal than fascists (sometimes called corporatists for their advocacy of a union of state and corporate power) or communists (corporations and people subjected to an all powerful state).
This is how language gets debased. Bullies warp society for their own ends. Some people fight back in one way (democratic socialists); others in a different way (libertarians).
Personally I’d rather extend an olive branch to people who at least somewhat recognize the problem and share some basic values — even as I debate them when I don’t agree with their ideas.
Chuck Divine:
“democratic socialists really are more liberal than fascists (sometimes called corporatists for their advocacy of a union of state and corporate power)”
I wouldn’t be sure that the two are always so different. A desire for a union of state and corporate power pretty well describes much of the democratic socialist creed from Woodrow Wilson and FDR onwards (or think Germany and France in Europe, and indeed the whole EU project).
Cydonia
David Carr writes, “examples abound…Gordon Brown referring to extortion as ‘investment’ ” etc. This reminds me of an example from my particular field of interest, firearms control, where police forces routinely refer to the administration of Firearms & Shotgun Certificates as a “service” to gun owners, rather than the onerous system of controls that it really is.
Cydonia,
As you know by putting the ‘smiley’ in I do not really believe in letting things lie as honest disagreement at all, that is why I argue with people. Only disagreement is intellectually fruitful, when two people agree then it is time to move on to a new subject. As we still disagree I’ll have another go at showing you the errors in your position 😉
Accusing people of abusing language may well be a successful debating tactic sometimes, so also might be mooning the audience, but neither of these things gets to the substance of the issue and it is the on the substance that we must really direct our argument to win in the long run. We would be wrong to assume that all of the people whose support we need to win will be impressed by such frivolous tactics. Our arguments live or die by their truth on matters of substance.
The Rothbard example you cite is a poor one for several reasons. Firstly, Rothbard pointing out the original meaning of the word ‘monopoly’ is irrelevant to his actual point. Secondly you are mistaken in what Rothbard’s actual point is. Rothbard argues not that we should only be concerned about state licenced monopolies, his point is that welfare damaging monoploy supply never occurs spontaneously on the free market. The truth of this point is independent of the meanings attached to any words.
So, far from the meaning of words being a ‘major issue’, as David Carr holds, or a ‘valuable addition to the libertarian propagandist armoury’ as you hold; it is completely irrelevant to the main debate, a sort of easy magic trick that you might perform at a children’s party. The only people who will be impressed by this piffle are the dull slow learners like Guessedworker and Tony H who prefer to entertain their grotty little minds with their grotty little predjudices.
We are making a serious error if we underestimate the intelligence of our ideological opponents.
“Socialism” = Communism-Lights.
To reuse the CRCs advert:
Repackaged Death.
David Carr writes:
“I refuse to accept that it is simply bad luck that the left have so successfully dominated the high ground of public discourse while our impact has been negligable.”
Perhaps this is because so many libertarians are wasting their time complaining about the misuse of words instead of challenging our opponents on matters of substance.
Paul,
I am not proposing semantics as a substitute for intellectual debate but as tools to advance that debate. ‘Shocktroops’ if you will. A small example of this is the recent appearance of the term ‘boondoggle’ in the mainstream British press.
Accuracy of language means it is easier to spot lies, euphamisms and fig-leaves.
Our enemies recognise the power of language as a vehicle for disseminating their true beliefs. Hence marxism gets rebranded as ‘social justice’. By the same token serious attempts are now being made by the same people to brand terms like ‘individuality’ or ‘freedom’ as racist. If they can use language as a trojan horse, why can’t we?
Paul, I am we can agree on the need to challenge and overturn a whole slew of underlying assumptions that we both know are wildly wrong. In order to do this I think it is essential to empahises the true meaning of the words employed in their construction.
You seeme to regard this as a gimmick. I see it as anything but.
“..so also might be mooning the audience..”
Now you’re talking! When do we get started?
Cydonia,
Most people can tell the difference between the likes of FDR and the likes of totalitarian leaders. While one may note similarities, one may note similarities of all sorts between different people. Politics is a multidimensional field.
Personally, about the only thing I’m a purist about is whisky (or what we in the United States call Scotch). I like it in a glass without ice or water.
I can argue all day with democratic socialists without worrying about getting a bullet fired into me. I doubt whether the same thing can be said about communists in a communist run society.
All the best,
Chuck Divine
Only disagreement is intellectually fruitful, thinks Paul Coulam, but he also appears to believe that vulgar abuse is an acceptable substitute for (or constituent part of) disagreement, which rather tends to induce contempt for his arguments rather than anything resembling interest…
He reminds me of certain teenage Marxist student union zealots from the past, whose enthusiasm outstripped their facility for civilised discourse – all mouth & trousers, as my granny used to say. It’s very easy to be abusive on a forum like this of course, because one don’t risk the extreme physical violence that might follow if one uttered such abuse face to face.
Tony,
This is a blog, not a forum. Thank you.
Hi David,
I think this is a good debate as it raises some interesting issues which are often overlooked. I ususally agree very much with the things that people say on this blog and only bother to comment if I disagree on some particular point as I think that chiming in with ‘bravo’ and ‘here, here’ is pretty dull stuff. This can make me seem like an ideological nit picker, which is not unfair as I very much enjoy picking the ideological nits. Therefore I have not mentioned where I agree with you on this, I think if I do it will make more perspicuous my point of disagreement. It is absolutely right that ‘liberal’ is a very fine word, with a great intellectual pedigree and once upon a time people like ourselves could use it to describe our outlook with pride. It may well be a matter for great regret that we have now lost the unchallenged use of this word in its pristine sense and it is certainly a most unpleasant sight to see such unworthy blackguards as the members of the Liberal Democrat party and their ilk taking a pride in the use of a word that we once felt to be ours.
So I fully sympathise with your anguish. However I take the Popperian position on this matter. There is no ‘true’ meaning of any words, so therefore there is no legitimate source of complaint at which one can direct ones fury. Fortunately, the fact that there is no authority in language is not in the least bit a barrier to meaningful discussion and understanding.
Both you and Cydonia are quite right to say that drawing attention to particularly flagrant euphemisms may well win a debate in some circumstances but this cannot be a substitute for challenging our opponents ideological agenda on the substance of their case. This is because many of our opponents and their supporters are not fools gulled by euphemisms but intelligent people under substantial misapprehension. They do not see themselves as evil people perpetrating a cunning trick like the villains in Rand’s novels.
Ulitimately victory will only be won if we move beyond the world of apperance and test their views on the hard terrain of objective truth and expose them as wanting.
Tony H,
I rarely find ‘extreme physical violence’ intellectually fruitful. I sympathise with your need to lash out as you flounder around disabled by your own inarticulation.
The only thing I have contempt for is your homophobia.
Ah, I had wondered in passing whether Paul Coulam’s virulent little spasm was prompted by something to do with my reference to “homos” – sorry about that Paul, very un-PC. But then, I didn’t think I’d ever need to use PC euphemisms on this interesting blog (not a forum, sorry David..) peopled largely by intelligent contributors who would scorn them. Clearly, you’re an exception. Afraid I despise the word “homophobia” – though I’m more concerned by your use of “inarticulation”, a word I suspect is not entirely kosher. Perhaps you mean “inarticulateness”..? At least your shaky choice of words helps to explain this bitterness on the subject of semantic precision. Oh, and extreme physical violence isn’t meant to be intellectually fruitful, as you might discover if you were on the receiving end of some. Bloody fruitful for anyone subjected to your po-faced rudery and who decided to bash you, though!
I’d just like to step in here and say I thought Döbeln’s post was very funny.
He was a comedy solutions provider, you might say.
Paul,
If one of the points or issues of a debate between a Lefty and a Libertarian were the tactics each side used to forward their viewpoint, then sematics and word choice would play a significant role. In such a case, hammering one side for it’s abuse of language would be entirely acceptable.
I refuse to use the term “liberal” to describe someone or something that does not adhere to it’s definition as I define it: that which is friendly to or supportive of freedom. It’s a personal choice of mine and I don’t intend it to ever change the world or even a small fraction of it. Anyone can assign a value and meaning to a word and use it as they wish; in this case, I choose to stick with the “classical” definition, so to speak.
And for those who track along the same lines, check this out. The term sure has evolved a long way in modern usage, hasn’t it?
Tony H,
Yes homophobes usually say they despise the word homophobia, I’m not surprised, it is a very inelegant word for a very unpleasant type of bigotry. What they mean, though, is that they despise gay people, as you clearly do. Equally clear is the fact that you can’t resist any opportunity to parade your nasty little prejudice. Your behaviour is very typical of the homophobe. You are obviously a man who likes to hit people he doesn’t like.
Paul
“The Rothbard example you cite is a poor one for several reasons. Firstly, Rothbard pointing out the original meaning of the word ‘monopoly’ is irrelevant to his actual point. Secondly you are mistaken in what Rothbard’s actual point is. Rothbard argues not that we should only be concerned about state licenced monopolies, his point is that welfare damaging monoploy supply never occurs spontaneously on the free market. The truth of this point is independent of the meanings attached to any words.”
You are of course right as to what Rothbard’s actual point was – I rather naughtily elided the definition he gave in ME&S with the point he and others have made elsewhere regarding the primary source of monopoly being the State. Nevertheless, his allusion to the original meaning of monopoly made a powerful impression on me.
More generally, there are many ways to persuade. Substantive argument is (sadly) only one of them. It may be the primary means when one is debating theory with well-informed foes or friends.
But packaging and presentation are also important and a clever choice of words with the right resonance is part of such packaging and presentation. All the more so when the target audience is, how shall I put it?, rather less well-informed than those who read this blog.
Of course on this blog, we ought not to become obsessed with the words we use, as long as the meaning is clear. But when Brian, Perry, Sean, David et al. are doing Newsnight 🙂 they would be foolish to attack State coerced “investment” and “fairness” without also attacking the spurious use of those words by our foes.
Cydonia
Tony H,
I have checked my dictionary and you are quite right ‘inarticulation’ is a slightly clumsy construction, I agree that ‘inarticulateness’ would have been a much better way to describe your offensive stupidity.
Charles,
It is perfectly in order for you to call yourself a liberal, but what is important is that you convey the liberal ideas clearly. It is no use if you go around saying you are a liberal and people take it to mean that you are a supporter of the Liberal Democrats.
Ah, Paul, you’re still beating the same tedious drum I find – slow to respond, been working away from home – and still indulging yourself in childish abuse. For someone who affects an acquaintance with Popperian philosophy (etc) you’re surprisingly ready to jump to erroneous conclusions about (yawn..) “homophobia” and so on, based on no evidence whatsoever. Please, if you’re as fond of (rational) argument as you pretend, you’re going to have to stop ascribing to your critics the sort of primitive prejudices you evidently wish they clung to; I mean, just because I innocently employ the word “homos” in passing, it doesn’t mean I necessarily want to ship all those of the homosexual persuasion off Southend Pier in cattle trucks, does it?
I’m glad you apologise for your make-believe word “inarticulation”, though it would have been more gracious if you’d confessed it was plain wrong rather than a “clumsy construction”. Now all you have to do is work a bit on your punctuation. Good luck, and have a nice day.
Tony H,
I see that apologising for inserting gratuitous homophobic abuse remains beyond the extent of your graciousness. There was nothing innocent in you deciding to mock ‘homos’, I expect it is characteristic of your personality. You seem to comment with all the confidence of a man who is used to being agreed with in pubs by people of very low intelligence. Your remarks about punctuation are fatuous given that this is a comment section on a blog and in light of your own contributions.
You affect to describe yourself as my critic, I find this truly astonishing. To the extent that I think of you at all it is as an amiable backward child who needs an occasional admonitory clout round the ear
because he is habitually masturbating in public.
Tony H,
P.S. My copy of Roget’s Thesaurus lists ‘inarticulation’ as a perfectly acceptable synonym for lack of articulacy. It is just a clumsy construction not a made up word. I point this out to you because I see that you are a petty fellow who obsesses on triviality at the expense of substantial understanding.