the silencing of nozick

Conversation with a "philosopher":

What are you teaching this term?

Political philosophy.

Oh, what are you teaching?

The first half of the term is Rawls, the second half contemporary critiques of liberalism.

That sounds great—are you teaching Nozick at all?

No, I find when you teach Nozick, students just accept his criticisms and can't take Rawls seriously any more . . . .

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.

the waggle dance

Communication begins with genetic evolution. The most primitive strategies for channeling information are forced upon society by its individuals' DNA. Only later does social evolution take over; here convention reigns supreme. But we who do not dance, we whose signifiers do not measure the signified, but rather indicate it arbitrarily, how can we know the world? Are our signs not too burdened by our prejudice? Are not our signs limited, rather than liberated, by society's caprice? Oh, to dance again, to tell the "truth," unencumbered by the distortions of collective hallucination!