reefer man

Cab Calloway

verboten culture

The practice of forbidding particular words, of enforcing the use of one word over another via sanctions, systematically divests our language of meaning. Language is a holistic system and words carry meaning only in contrast to other words. Thus, to have many different words in use for the same object or property provides many shades of connotation, or subtlety of meaning. When we forbid the use of alternate terms in the public forum (because they are "derogatory" or "offensive" ( = Saxon)) the remaining, permitted word ceases to have any positive connotation, it subsumes negative connotations. Of course, the intended purpose of such regulations is to control thought. By forbidding the use of a derogatory term (the argument goes), we inhibit the spread of the attitude expressed by that term. (comparison: systematically erasing usage of the term "bad" in order to stem dissatisfaction with the government (Orwell, 1984)) Even if such derogatory attitudes are to be despised, surely a less-totalitarian strategy for combatting them could be imagined! In fact, historically, the effect of such sanctions has not been to eliminate prejudice but to introduce further layers of prejudice. Consider the suppression of Saxon terms by the Normans; we still feel the effects today of Norman intolerance in the persistent suppression of the "seven words" ~ it is no accident that they are of Saxon origin, while their Latinate cousins are regularly used in scientific journals and high school health classes! How ironic that our "freedom fries" eating government remains resolutely Francophile in its vocabulary choices! Consider also the case of "dwarf" and "midget" ~ these used to have distinct meanings referring to two distinct physiological types. The medical term midget became pejorative as it was subsumed into popular culture ~ here the causal direction is reversed! Surely the preexisting prejudice manipulated the term's connotation, and its legitimate meaning had little effect on this use. How long, then, will "little people," a term which erases the heterogeneity of medical conditions resulting in less than average stature, survive as a positive term? How long before cultural prejudices tar it with pejorative connotations? ~ when said with a sneer, or an ironic twinkle in the eye . . . when said bitterly, as if a nastier term merely has left the lips with the wrong sound . . .

No, the manipulation of language is a dead end in the quest for acceptance, the attempt to remove one prejudice by introducing another a profound hypocrisy.

the unnatural

What is the unnatural? In ancient days, the common man used this expression to express disgust for social practices which violated his religious dicta. In modern times, we have become relativists about social practices. Now "unnatural" is used as an expression of disgust for industrial practices which violate the prophets' environmental dicta. There is no unnatural, but that we make is so in name only, and these unnaturalists are but another impediment on the arduous climb to the pinnacle of understanding. Human society exists in continuum with the unnaturalist's "nature," and is likewise ruled by the same forces. The invisible hand which governs evolutionary change and that which governs market forces is the same. The wise man has said: listen to the prophets with a suspicious ear; believe not their rhetoric, but instead extract from their hyperbolic proclamations tentative and careful meaning.

"Ismail Ax"

Man cannot help but seek meaning in chaos. A hurricane, a tidal wave, a swarm of locusts: man asks, "Why! Why! What is the meaning of this? Is it my fault?" He makes offerings to his false gods in the vain hope that they will help him imbue the meaningless with meaning, and thereby satisfy his selfish desire to be at blame. But when the source of chaos is not capricious nature but another man, how much more compelling we find this drive. Surely, despite the chaos in his actions, he must, deep down, be like me. Surely, there is a kernel of humanity in him, a soul which reflects myself, a reason which can be understood? But the "reasons" of the mad are by their very nature without reason. These are the same folly: "what is the meaning of this shape within the clouds?"; what is the meaning of the writings on a madman's arm?

the amateur linguist

When I was a child, we used the word "gay" as a mild playground remonstrative. Now, this innocent use is verboten as it "impugns the homosexual." Yet "gay" once stood for the light of heart, the merry, and the licentious. Must we permit the amateur linguist to calcify its meaning in severity and forever forbid the ever-shifting currents of convention from carrying "gay" back to its roots in levity? Can we permit it? ~ convention admits no master.