Hijacking Words: Richard Dawkins Saw the Light
Words, Words, Words
| February 9, 2010
| Tim
One of the enduring themes of my own life, and thus Random Observations is the battle between what I think of as the "clarifiers" and the "obscurers" — those, on one hand, who seek to make differences more clear, definitions being used as precise as possible, who strive for clear and rational discourse — and, on the other hand, those who deploy private definitions, who use logical fallacies, ambiguous language, and rhetorical slight-of-hand to obscure the underlying issue or question as much as possible.
The image atheists project (somewhat successfully, I'd say) — and Darwinist scientists, I'd add, in this particular case — is that of people concerned primiarily with reason, clarity, and a dispassionate analysis of the facts.
I just came across this passage, written by Richard Dawkins, which reveals, at least in him, a strong willingness to use rhetorical slights he one held to be wrong:
A triumph of consciousness-raising has been the homosexual hijacking of the word 'gay'. I used to mourn the loss of gay in (what I still think of as) its true sense...
So, like me, Dawkins once hated seeing words being "hijacked", emptied of its true content, and re-purposed for exclusive use a group. And what discovery or evidence changed his mind on this one?
Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an 'up' word where homosexual is a down word... Those of us who subscribe to no religion... we need a word of our own, a word like 'gay'. You can say "I am an atheist" but at best it sounds stuffy (like "I am a homosexual") and at worst it inflames prejudice (like "I am a homosexual").... Like gay, it should be a noun hijacked from an adjective, with its original meaning changed but not too much.
Ah! Utility! The "hijacking" he once hated worked, so now he's quite ready to do some "hijacking" himself.
And thus began the episode in history where atheists started demanding everyone call them "brights". An episode which ended in popular derision and which, I gather, Dawkins is none to keen to discuss today.
The larger point here is how one who was once (I presume) a "clarifier" — an opponent of politically-motivated word-hijackings — came to avidly embrace all his mind once recognized as unhelpful. If atheism provides safeguards against such tendencies, Richard Dawkins (and Daniel Dennett) are not good example cases.
In fact, I'd note that the recent attempt to redefine the word "atheism" itself — in a way which profoundly changes its meaning (and includes people who never wanted to be included in that definition) — shows exactly how prone the atheist community, as a whole, is to falling toward the non-clarifying, goalpost-shifting, word-redefining end of the rational-discourse spectrum.
You sound like a four cylinder car running on just two, or perhaps even one. This "Bright" issue is at least several years old and was said to a great extent in a tongue in cheek manner. Dawkins got to make fun of a movement of "Happies" by announcing that atheists are a movement of "Smarties". Do you always fall so easily into primitive traps?
You sound like a four cylinder car running on just two, or perhaps even one.
Oooh! Personal invective! Very impressive!
But you should have said I was running on "none"! That would have been even more convincing!
This "Bright" issue is at least several years old...
... unlike the Crusades, the (much-exaggerated) Spanish Inquisition and other similarly contemporary events atheist apologists are fond of raising, what, every five minutes or so? (I'm sure you protest such references vigorously, right?)
I know: this embarrassing little incident was supposed to have gone down the memory hole! Follow-up recollections of it will not be permitted!
...and was said to a great extent in a tongue in cheek manner...
Oh! It was tongue-in-cheek! Didn't seem very much like it at the time. Read the article yourself: he seems pretty happy about the idea; not a trace of self-deprecating irony in sight.
Dawkins said he got the idea from Paul Geisert:
In deciding to attend the "Godless Americans March on Washington" in 2002, Paul disliked the label "godless" and resolved to identify a better term to unite the "community of reason". He sought a new, positive word that might become well-accepted, in the same way that the term "gay" has come to mean "homosexual". In late 2002, Paul coined the noun "bright", but did not announce it immediately.
Haha! Heehee! Boy, Thom, you're right! Look at the hilarity in the story of the founding! What a kidder!
And here's Daniel Dennett's similarly side-splittingly funny commentary on the "Brights" movement:
The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group — which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before -- could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help....
As an adult white married male with financial security, I am not in the habit of considering myself a member of any minority in need of protection... I've come to realize it's time to sound the alarm... Most brights don't play the "aggressive atheist" role. We don't want to turn every conversation into a debate about religion.... But the price is political impotence. Politicians don't think they even have to pay us lip service, and leaders who wouldn't be caught dead making religious or ethnic slurs don't hesitate to disparage the "godless" among us.
Hehe! What a joker! Slaying 'em dead, that Dennett!
Do you always fall so easily into primitive traps?
Oooh! I was outsmarted-ed by Dawkins? He smart! Me dumb! Thom not at all self-deluded!
I suppose that'll be next defense of the IPCC too, eh? "Haha! The bit about the melting Himalayan Glaciers? That was just a parody! Are you so easily taken in? Boy, are you stupid!"
Oh, and you'd better write to these atheists, too. They're even dumber than I am, apparently, as they take it even more seriously.
Well, that was a lovely textbook example of atheistic self-delusion and historical rewriting. Thanks!
How is it that you see, very clearly, the error of Dawkins’s way and yet fail to take up your sword equally on the usurpation of the word Gay? Let’s settle this silly argument. Dawkins will give you back the adjective Bright, and you can go get back the work Gay. That should make you a happy camper all the way aroud, eh
Thom - I'm not sure you even understand what Tim is saying. Why do you think that Tim "wants back the word Gay." He seems to be opposed to the usurpation of words in general.
Also, I really don't understand why you're so darn angry about the post. Fill me in. What's at stake for you?
My first paragraph was unclear. I meant I don't see why you believe that Tim is inconsistent in his beliefs.
Tim presented a pretty logical refutation of your argument. You respond with what seems like baseless invective to avoid conceeding the point. If you're interested in truth, why not acknowledge the validity of Tim's point? If you can't, you might consider what aspect of your emotions is interfering with your ability to learn from your opponents and change your beliefs accordingly. Chances are, such a difficulty won't just hurt you in this one instance.
How is it that you see, very clearly, the error of Dawkins's way and yet fail to take up your sword equally on the usurpation of the word Gay?
Um, as Ryan points out, I already have. (Both above and in many other places.) But the point here isn't really about usurpation of words.
The homosexual lobby doesn't have some prime advocate of the term "gay" saying how much he detested the practice of usurping words until he decided to do it, himself. Given that, Dawkins, on this point, scores well below "gays" who have usurped the word in question — they've never thought such was wrong, I gather; he has.
His argument for his "consciousness-raising" seems to consist only of: "Well, I've always thought the practice of usurping words was loathsome, but it seems to work! So let's do it!"
... why not acknowledge the validity of Tim's point?
Um, because blasphemy against an atheist's god is not well-tolerated? >;-)
I think your point depends on misrepresentation or mischaracterization of Dawkins' "before" and "after" positions.
Dawkins once hated seeing words being "hijacked", emptied of its true content, and re-purposed for exclusive use a group.
Where does Dawkins say he "hated" the new use of "gay?" He says he mourns the old, but now he understands the benefit of the new.
And thus began the episode in history where atheists started demanding everyone call them "brights".
Come now. Can you show me any example of anyone demanding that anyone else call them "brights?" Every example I've seen was about someone naming themselves "brights."
He says he mourns the old, but now he understands the benefit of the new.
I don't mean this confrontationally, but I believe it is, in fact, your statement above which mischaracterizes what Dawkins said. You said (pay attention to verb tense): "he mourns the old..." — present tense — as if he's simultaneously doing both, and there has been no shift.
No, that's not at all what he says. Read the article for yourself if you think I'm mistaken:
I used to laugh at 'him or her', and at 'chairperson'.... I used to deplore what I regarded as the tokenism of my American atheist friends.... I used to mourn the loss of gay...
Note he "used to" deplore/laugh at/mourn such attempts to change language for tactical reasons, but now he does not. That's his whole point, where he says, repeatedly, his "consciousness has been raised" — i.e. that he changed his mind on such tactics.
Where does Dawkins say he "hated" the new use of "gay?"
Okay, he "mourned" the new use. If you think that's an unfair substitution, then I don't mind modifying it. (As if "she mourned the loss of her husband" wasn't at all fair to render as "she hated the fact her husband died".)
I'm not sure how that makes a difference, but I'll gladly grant that to you, if you think that helps your argument somehow. He didn't "hate" the new use of gay. He "mourned" seeing words emptied of their meaning.
This affects my point not at all.
Can you show me any example of anyone demanding that anyone else call them "brights?" Every example I've seen was about someone naming themselves "brights."
Touche! On one hand, I grant that you're technically correct. I shouldn't have said "demanded": they hope the meme catches on, but haven't explicitly demanded others call them that.
On other other hand, that IS the point, isn't it? Richard Dawkins has parallels the strategy with what he saw happen with "gay". Come now: if a "gay" man is called "homosexual" (especially in some media appearance) he says: "I prefer to be called 'gay'." (And now "homosexual" is considered a slur.) Is that a "demand"? It has the same effect, whatever you call it.
I grant your point technically, but think you're not understanding the whole point behind promoting "gay" as a replacement for "godless", "atheist", etc. Just as with "gay", that replacement is not at all intended to happen only within the group in question.
Beware the brights!
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Militant_atheist.jpg
And if you got any time left beware Al-Qaeda too :/.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« C.S. Lewis on Other Faiths |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Richard Dawkins on Child Abuse »
|
You sound like a four cylinder car running on just two, or perhaps even one. This "Bright" issue is at least several years old and was said to a great extent in a tongue in cheek manner. Dawkins got to make fun of a movement of "Happies" by announcing that atheists are a movement of "Smarties". Do you always fall so easily into primitive traps?
Posted by: Thom on February 9, 2010 10:35 PM