The Role of Words

It has been said that words have power, that words are power.  And they can be.  But I maintain it is not the words themselves that carry the power; the true power is in the intent behind the words when they are used and the power given to the words when they are received.

Words are symbols.  Like all symbols, words are meaningless until we cooperatively agree to assign to them a meaning.  That meaning may vary from region to region, from person to person, or change with the passage of time.

Words are tools.  Tools are meant to be placed in our hands and wielded by us with intent.  Tools are not meant to make us cower in a corner, terrified and bewildered by their power.

For over a decade, I've raised the ire of a good number of my feminist friends because of my stance on words.  I have no problem with words like "chairman" or "postman" being used to denote either a male or female committee chair or postal worker.  I also have no problem with dichotomous terms like "actor" and "actress" or "waiter" and "waitress".  But it's usually the former that really raises the hackles of the feminists.

My logic on this point is twofold.  First, take a look at the words.  Human, man, woman.  Happen to notice anything in common there?  The use of the same three letters that are used in all three terms is discriminatory how, exactly?  Only by--and this leads us to my second point--intent.  If we allow terms like "chairman" to be sexist, if we give them that kind of power--which I happen to think is dangerous; there's already enough out there that has enough power that can be used against us without us weaponizing words to be used against ourselves as well--then they become sexist terms.  Otherwise, they're just words.  What's important is the intent with which they're said.

If anyone really thinks that changing language from "chairman" to "chairperson" is going to change societal attitudes toward women, then they must think that changing from a parka into a bikini will change winter to summer.  The entire approach is backwards.  The words are simply indicators of underlying attitudes.  Changing the indicators has no effect on the attitudes; if anything, bickering over what is, in my opinion, the small stuff only serves to worsen the problem.  If women want sexism to go away, then we have to stop focusing on possible symptoms like the words and start focusing on the causes of sexism, which lie on both sides of the fence.  Yes, ladies, if we want sexism to go away, we have to change some things about ourselves, too, because sexism isn't just perpetuated by the men.  But I'm getting off-topic, and that's a whoooole different can of worms for another day.

In our politically-correct culture, some of the euphemistic terms we've devised to refer to certain groups of people actually serve to segregate and dehumanize them more than plain language would.  I'm mostly thinking of the language surrounding disabilities, but the same point can apply elsewhere as well.  People worry so much about using the wrong term or not knowing the "right" term that instead of seeing the other person simply as another person, both different and similar to themselves just like every other person is, they focus on the differences and the labels.  We gingerly handle like porcelain dolls those who are different lest we offend, and yet in doing so, we mutely parade about with wild gesticulation the fact that "you are not like us!!!!!"  If your intent is to respect a person for who they are, then respect a person for who they are, don't make up a bunch of terms and language rules that only serve to accentuate the differences and exacerbate the problem of people not knowing how to integrate with the person who's different. 

Race is an arena in which we've seen some pretty extensive changes in the use of language.  The difference in race relations between 1865 and today, however, did not come about because someone decided racial slurs were bad.  Racial slurs have fallen out of favor as much as they have because--through the sacrifice, determined effort, bravery, and dedication of many people throughout many decades--race relations have changed.  And there's still more work to be done.

That brings me to the news story that sparked today's post.  For anyone who chooses to not click on the link and read for themselves, here's the gist of it: a Mark Twain scholar and English professor at Auburn University is releasing a new version of the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn which has been edited to replace all instances of the highly-offensive racial slur often referred to as "the 'n' word" with the word "slave".

I get why he's doing it.  Way back in the dark ages when I was in elementary school and that was one of my favorite books, I was incensed because of the news stories I heard about schools and libraries banning the book.  "It's a satire!" I protested. "The entire point is to show the ignorance of racism and that a person's skin color has no bearing on their worth!"  But it seems that a lot of folks don't get Twain's intention.  Or are afraid that someone else won't.

I remember once, when I was reading aloud from the book, I couldn't actually say the word in question.  I don't know that I've actually ever said that word in my life, and I have no intention of doing so; although it's used as slang with a different intention now, to me it still means what it used to mean, and I stand against everything that word meant.  So if I have any say in the matter--no pun intended--that word will never cross my lips.  But you want to know one reason why that is?  Because, when I was at the age where kids start to notice that some people are different, I read that book.  And I understood what Twain was getting at.  It made sense. 

I know full well that not everyone who reads the book will understand the intent of it.  There are plenty of adults who seem to miss the point, and I'm sure the odds of understanding aren't going to increase as the age range decreases.  However, a major part of the value of the story is the excellent teaching opportunity it gives, not just on issues of race but also on how race relations have evolved.  Obviously, I was not alive in 1885 when the book was first published to see how things were then.  I was not alive to see the efforts of Rosa Parks or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or to see how things were then.  I do remember how things were when I was a child, and I do see that things have changed for the better.

I understand wanting to protect one's children from ugliness.  But overprotecting a child does them more harm than good.  Sheltering them from ugliness doesn't make the ugliness go away, and they'll encounter it eventually.  Best that they be prepared.

I understand wanting to promote better race relations.  And that's exactly why this revision is a bad idea.  In order to better understand the importance of racial equality, in order to gain a sense of how the civil rights movement has developed over time, in order to understand what was/has been/is/will be at stake, in order to understand what has happened and what has been done, today's children need to see where we came from, where we've been, the road we've taken, from whence it came and to where it can lead.  Denying that the egregious racism of the past happened is an offense and an affront to everyone who suffered at the hands of that racism and to everyone who's suffered at the hands of it since.  Don't hide the ugly truth.  The ugly truth has to be revealed, has to be discussed and understood for what it is, has to teach our children the vital lessons we've learned over the past century plus.

In the words of George Santayana, which I'm sure we've all heard, but which ring true all the same, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  The state of affairs portrayed in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is something that should NEVER be repeated; it should have never come to pass in the first place.  Teach our children why.  Teach our children so they can keep us moving toward racial equality.

Words.  In a good number of cultures, words were considered to be magic.  And there is magic in words.  Like magic in the hands of a witch, words can be used for good or for ill, to bless or to curse.  Words can be used to empower or enslave us, to unite or divide us, to obscure or reveal the truth, to obfuscate or illuminate understanding.  It seems to me that our society's relationship with words is headed in the wrong direction.  All the while thinking we're using them to accomplish one goal, we're actually accomplishing precisely the opposite.  We're agitating sexism, accentuating differences, and perpetuating racism.  Surely we're smarter than that.  Words are tools in our hands.  Let's use them instead of them using us.  Let's use them to make our world better.  Let's use them to make ourselves better.

---

I'd like to mention that, while in this post I discuss sexism from the point of view of discrimination against women, that's solely because I'm discussing it in the context of having angered some of my feminist friends.  Sexism goes both ways.  Anyone who disputes the idea, consider the following four examples that I can quickly think of off the top of my head: 1) Men can get drafted; women can't. 2) If a girl wants to play sports or read comic books, that's totally cool.  If a boy wants to play with dolls or take ballet classes?  At least around these parts, Hank Hill best expresses the prevailing attitude, "That boy ain't right." 3) Typically, women can express a wider range of emotions in a wider range of situations and remain socially acceptable than men can.  I could be missing something, but I don't think we're to a place yet where men tearing up at a Hallmark commercial would be viewed as commonplace. 4) It's far more socially acceptable for a woman to be a stay-at-home parent or spouse than it is for a man.  Sexism is a complicated problem with complex causes, and the answers aren't nearly as simple as most of the folks I've heard speak on the subject seem to think.  A large part of the answer involves reframing the way we consider the situation.  But again, that's another topic for another day.