I try to keep out of culture-war debates in the public sphere, but this one in particular always bothers me. I recall hearing an acquaintance once say "economic oppression is a form of slavery"; that got on my nerves quite a lot. Why couldn't it just be said that "economic oppression is bad" and then we wouldn't have to redefine words. The whole thing reminds me of Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty, who said "when I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean." But if we can't agree on a baseline definition of terms, it becomes increasingly difficulty to discuss anything at all - which, I fear, is what we are seeing in the current cultural moment. It is saddening that you had to write this essay, but thank you for doing so.
I think there's a more fundamental problem in the careless use of words like "oppression". Unless it's something obvious too all parties, it's probably overly emotional word choice. Is low pay "oppression"? Maybe, but maybe just say that low pay is the issue, not "oppression". And then to pile "slavery" on top is a real shocker.
And that's exactly the point, to over-emotionalise every argument because in modern society, emotion more and more is what wins debates, (or causes debates not to happen in the first place). Emotion fires up your activists and your voters, it gets people to donate money, which translates to power.
This is really excellent. Thank you. The notion of "thinking in words" is one of those things I had been struggling to come up with, and now that I see you explain it think "Maybe I need to get my head checked." That the symbol is what people are using to form relationships and not the objects symbolized is really putting your finger on the problem. Well done!
Your second para. made me think. In English department there's definitely the tendency to prefer "different ways of knowing" to the "scientific method", which may make sense based on their objects of study.
But in Social Psychology and Sociology circles, for instance, I've often seen it happen that the choice of method is highly malleable depending on the perceived political outcome a member of the circle thinks the method or study will have.
So, something like a choice between "science" and "narrative" when studying a phenomenon or a group is made based, not just on language, but on what the researcher wants the world to be like. Often as opposed to what the world is like, as you've noted here.
This leads to a lot of methodological and theoretical - not to mention semantic - confusion, again as you've said here.
Anyway, I need to think a little more on this, but thanks again for the post.
I try to keep out of culture-war debates in the public sphere, but this one in particular always bothers me. I recall hearing an acquaintance once say "economic oppression is a form of slavery"; that got on my nerves quite a lot. Why couldn't it just be said that "economic oppression is bad" and then we wouldn't have to redefine words. The whole thing reminds me of Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty, who said "when I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean." But if we can't agree on a baseline definition of terms, it becomes increasingly difficulty to discuss anything at all - which, I fear, is what we are seeing in the current cultural moment. It is saddening that you had to write this essay, but thank you for doing so.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, William. It's much appreciated. 😁
I think there's a more fundamental problem in the careless use of words like "oppression". Unless it's something obvious too all parties, it's probably overly emotional word choice. Is low pay "oppression"? Maybe, but maybe just say that low pay is the issue, not "oppression". And then to pile "slavery" on top is a real shocker.
And that's exactly the point, to over-emotionalise every argument because in modern society, emotion more and more is what wins debates, (or causes debates not to happen in the first place). Emotion fires up your activists and your voters, it gets people to donate money, which translates to power.
Really great analysis
That is very encouraging and appreciated. Thank you BobBob 🙏
This is really excellent. Thank you. The notion of "thinking in words" is one of those things I had been struggling to come up with, and now that I see you explain it think "Maybe I need to get my head checked." That the symbol is what people are using to form relationships and not the objects symbolized is really putting your finger on the problem. Well done!
Good article here. Thanks.
Your second para. made me think. In English department there's definitely the tendency to prefer "different ways of knowing" to the "scientific method", which may make sense based on their objects of study.
But in Social Psychology and Sociology circles, for instance, I've often seen it happen that the choice of method is highly malleable depending on the perceived political outcome a member of the circle thinks the method or study will have.
So, something like a choice between "science" and "narrative" when studying a phenomenon or a group is made based, not just on language, but on what the researcher wants the world to be like. Often as opposed to what the world is like, as you've noted here.
This leads to a lot of methodological and theoretical - not to mention semantic - confusion, again as you've said here.
Anyway, I need to think a little more on this, but thanks again for the post.
Cheers!
How did you find my blog if I could ask? Twitter?
Oh, I saw you on Huemer's Substack. And I have enjoyed what I've seen on yours so far.
Hey, thanks for the comment!!