“Etymological Curiosities” by Sydney Williams
Each year, lexicographers at Merriam-Webster, Britain-based Collins Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, and others, select a “word of the year,” often a neologism, but not always. Gaslighting[1] (a form of psychological abuse) was the choice at M-W, while Collins chose permacrisis. The former was chosen because of the increase in lookups (up 1,740%), while the latter was selected, as it was applicable to a year that saw the first war in Europe in seventy-seven years, China’s increased aggression, and world-wide inflation. The OED selected three words, including my favorite – more a phrase than a word – goblin mode, which was also cited by Ben Zimmer in a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. It refers to behavior that is “unapologetically lazy, slovenly, greedy, typically in a way that rejects social norms.” It is often assigned to those who spend inordinate amounts of time on social media, as in my grandchild is in goblin mode.
I have been thinking of words and phrases – their origins, meanings, and appropriation by political opportunists, often leaving their opponents with the etymological dregs. Over the past few years, we have created a political alphabet soup: CRT, DEI, ESG, and BLM, reminding one of Roosevelt’s “alphabet soup agencies’ from the 1930s. But, unlike FDR’s agencies which actually put people to work, today’s alphabet soups have more in common with Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
Words have assumed new meanings. Yesterday’s environmentalists have become today’s climate warriors. Information to some is misinformation to others. Should it be the state that decides what is accurate and what is not? Is it too much to ask Twitter users to be personally wary of conspiracy theories and to look out for offensive language – offensive to some but not to others? And what, for example, does the European Union means when it tells Twitter that it must apply “content moderation” to the posts it allows?
When I read of Larry Fink pontificating as to being socially responsible, I picture a greedy John Bull with a smirk on his face and a halo above his head. And the scam artist Samuel Bankman-Fried, a promoter of progressive fads, bills himself as an effective altruist. Is not an altruist already effective? Certainly, his investors and depositors who lost millions of dollars do not see him as altruistic.
The definition of the word liberal has changed. In 1828, Noah Webster defined the word as “of a free heart; free to give or bestow, generous.” The 1995 edition of Webster’s college dictionary defined the word: “favorable to progress or reform…advocating progressive philosophies.” However, the OED defines liberal as an individual “willing to accept or respect behavior or opinions of others…[a} social philosophy that promotes individual rights.” Such broad and varying definitions allow almost anyone to claim to be a liberal. Other words creep into cultural use. Woke comes from African American vernacular English of the 1930s; it became a popular internet meme after the shooting of Michael Brown and is now largely used by whites, signaling, like naughty Little Jack Horner, their virtue.
Consider two of my favorite etymological bêtes noires: progressive and conservative. The former makes us think of the future, the latter of the past. They were the subject of a fascinating op-ed by Professor Hyrum Lewis of Brigham Young University in the November 26 edition of The Wall Street Journal. He wrote: “Republicans have a narrative problem that originates with the idea of ‘conservativism’ itself.” He referred to William Buckley’s observation that a conservative is someone who stands athwart history and yells, stop. Progress, in contrast, is defined as a forward movement toward a better end. Which sounds more appealing?
Conservatives want to conserve the good of the past – the Constitution, classical education, etiquette, personal responsibility and accountability, the value of work – but they are as interested in progress as are progressives. The difference is that conservatives emphasize the role played by curious, aspirant, diligent, and talented individuals, while progressives cite the state as the principal impetus for progress. There is truth to both claims. While technological, scientific, and industrial progress has been largely due to the efforts of individuals – Alexander Graham Bell, Wilbur and Orville Wright, Steve Jobs and Elon Musk – the Department of Defense and federally funded programs, like NASA, have also produced consumer products. And while legislated social progress – emancipation, the right of women to vote, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 – is a consequence of government, individuals played crucial roles in their adoption.
DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), the phrase has been hijacked by virtue signalers, to distinguish them from what they claim are culturally offensive conservative bigots But, just because the initials are not tattooed on our arms, is that fair? I know of no true conservative who does not support diversity of opinions, equality of all people before the law, and inclusion of all people in public institutions. Social organizations, fraternities, sororities, private clubs select members based on common preferences, which may be based on gender or race, but may also be based on similar social preferences, regardless of race or gender. Is that so terrible? In a decision reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the Brearley School, an exclusive school for girls in New York City, recently required a signed pledge by teachers and parents that they support the school’s commitment to anti-racism and inclusion, and that they agree “to participate in required anti-racist training and ongoing reflection.” As a private institution, they have a right to act as they wish, but both teachers and parents should be conscious of what is being demanded – a request for blind loyalty.
But is it words or beliefs that separate our two political parties? In broad, general terms, the main difference between Democrats and Republicans is not that one favors progress and the other favors regression. It is the emphasis each puts on the role government plays in our lives. Democrats, in general, favor more government and Republicans, less. Resistance, for example, was legitimate when exercised by Democrats following the election of Donald Trump in 2016 – remember the pink “pussy hats” of solidarity? – but resistance to the 2020 election was deemed undemocratic.[2] In essence, the difference between the two Parties reminds one of the Chinese saying: Is it better to teach a man to fish, or to give him a fish? Americans do not to march to a single drummer, so ideologies are scattered along a broad spectrum of political thought. Republicans, if they want to become the dominant political power, must do a better job of describing their beliefs. Granted, it is easier to argue what you want government to do than what you would like it not to do. So, Republicans should highlight the individual, stress the importance of education, aspiration, diligence, and effort in ascending the economic ladder, a ladder to whom all should have access, a ladder whose first rung is education, where emphasis, above all else, should be on the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic. “Words,” as Kipling told the College of Surgeons ninety-nine years ago, are “the most powerful drug used by mankind.”
Comments are closed.
