The Tyrany of Words - Updated

Work in Progress--as of July 2015

Language is the hallmark of civilization.  This is true in general and at the extremes, from expressions of love to definitions of international conflict.  On the personal level certain words cement a relationship where the connections are between two people only, with meaning only residing in their internalized values.  "love you" is central to works of literature over the ages,  yet the commitment has no force of law.  But in a way the concept does affect law,  not directly, rather by that amorphous change in culture that elevates the idealized "love" above other words, or concepts, that have lost cogency.  

This essay is prompted by several events.  One the pending Supreme Court decision expected to finalize the movement to allow same sex marriage in the United States.  The speed of this movement, from only a few decades ago when same gender sexual relations were criminalized in most states, to enshrine such relationships into the legal and cultural institution of marriage, makes it worthy of analysis on different dimensions.  Only a few years ago, the current liberal President and the expected nominee of their party both were opposed to same sex marriage, becoming advocates only recently.  Both claimed it was the result of personal epiphany, something questionable for adults known for intellectual acuity that had formed their previous position.

What has changed for Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton may be dismissed as political expediency, but what is more interesting is how the entire industrialized western world, exemplified by the recent Irish plebiscite, has gone through this transformation.  This essay is not being written to advance a position on this issue or any other, but to look at the process of language, or words that are so emotionally loaded to negate their ultimate value as elements of understanding and formulation of the rules of a society.  

Being born in 1940, my absorption of language coincided with a period of war when nationalities were either friends or enemies.  For years after it was over, "German" to me was an epithet, emotionally the same as Nazi or "Jap."  This was the tone of the entire country, on radio programs and newspaper headlines, something a child absorbs with the ease of learning all values at that age.  Dirt is dirty, kindness is good,  God is in heaven and the devil is evil, as are all bad people.  As we mature, specific objects are generalized --- Republican are for the rich, and Democrats for the poor - (my earliest political  truism conveyed by my dad.)  

Yiddish, spoken by my parents,  has a rich taxonomy of outsiders, literally black or white) but also subgroups, those people who were not from the poor villages of the pale of the settlement of the Russian Empire who may happen to share the Jewish religion.  It was a  lot for a kid to learn, while also developing the suspicion that among the groups that did not share the Shetl mentality with its own secret language, could be he, himself.  

My earliest "instructions" conveyed from all around from the President to kids on the street was that we "should" hate Japs and Germans.  When we played our games of war, the prize was killing more of them, just like our fathers and big brothers were doing for real.  And when the war was over, as if a switch were thrown, things changed.  Japs became Japanese, Germans became our allies against the new enemy, communism, and homosexuality was among the things that were only snickered about if acknowledged at all.  

It's so easy, so natural for words to take on emotional loading.  My own dad, in spite of his own family having come to this country seeking solace, had a certain mild disdain for those who were resettled here after the war, under the term "refugee."   

(tangential)  Other words have legal consequences.  The withholding of information that may harm someones reputation is either a legitimate negotiation ploy, or something quite different if depicted with a word, "blackmail."

This essay is being prompted by the shooting death of nine members of a Black church in Charleston N.C. by a white man who identified with several anti-black organizations.  One issue that has arisen is how to define this, whether it is a "hate crime" or "terrorism."   The New York Times raised this question in an early headline, and was a rare occasion for Jon Stewart to eschew satire to brand this as "terrorism" implying the greater emotional and legal condemnation. 

The term "hate crime" has thus become "reified" made into something defining this crime, although in this case it it is legally meaningless, just as whether or not it is "terrorism."  A late night T.V. panel noted that South Carolina is one of the few states without hate crime legislation.  The panelists were unaware that for this atrocity hate crime legislation would not have any relevance, since such laws only increase the penalty for certain offenses. by definition not applying to capital crimes.  This slaughter was obviously motivated by hatred towards Blacks and will have the effect of terrorizing this group -- to some degree. Choosing between "terrorism" or "hate crime," is the perfect example of "The Tyranny of Words" of this title.   This is also the title of a book written in 1938, that was a popularized precursor to the academic field of linguistics. This was written by Stuart Chase, gaining a wide readership before the letters P.C., meant the process of vetting of words and terms in the service of political goals. 

Two days ago a young man who belonged to an organization that wanted to preserve the racism of the confederate cause walked into a black church, participated in the hour long bible lesson, and then took out his new 45 automatic and calmly shot nine people to death.   It could be a time for tears, or for rage,  for sadness, but our media for some reason decided that putting a label on the act was worthwhile.  There are other labels that could be used for the shooter, such as troubled or misguided, which while applicable could never be uttered by anyone.