The dangerous confusion of language

The 21st Century Tower of Babel

My new book Grand Narrative is being released chapter by chapter for paid subscribers.

CONTENTS:

PROLOGUE: The Oxford Union has betrayed British Values

The Oxford Union has betrayed British Values

INTRODUCTION: Who’s afraid of grand narrative?

Who's afraid of Grand Narrative?

BOOK 1: LANGUAGE: ON LIES & CIVILIZATIONAL DEMISE

1.1: Living a Lie

Living a Lie [Grand Narrative, Chapter 1.1]

1.2: Corruption of the Masses

Corruption of the masses

1.3: The Dangerous Confusion of Language

1.4: The Great Genocide Lie

1.5: In Praise of the British Empire for Abolishing Slavery Worldwide

1.6 Hands off Churchill!

1.7: Declaring War on Post-Modernism

1.8: The Problem with Atheism

1.9: Justice Lost: From Plato to Hamas

1.10: Thou Shalt Not Lie: On the Destruction of Worlds

1.11: Democracy cannot survive in a World that accepts Truth as Lie

BOOK 2: TRUTH: ON THE BIRTH OF HUMAN AGENCY

BOOK 3: SOVEREIGNTY: ON THE DEMOCRATIC NATION

BOOK 4: NARRATIVE: ON THE FULFILMENT OF MEANING

BOOK 5: FREEDOM: ON WRITING THE NEXT CHAPTER

BOOK 6: COVENANT: ON CREATING A NATION OF NARRATIVE

BOOK 7: NATIONHOOD: ON EXPANDING THE NARRATIVE

BOOK 8: LEADERSHIP: ON REACHING THE PROMISED LAND

BOOK 9: PEACE: THE END OF THE JOURNEY

---

[Image: “The Tower of Babel” by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1563)]

DIRECT TRANSLATION OF BABEL: Hebrew for Babylon

ETYMOLOGY OF BABEL: From the Hebrew root B-B-L meaning “confusion”

Chapter 1.4: The Dangerous Confusion of Language

The 21st Century Tower of Babel

You are literally going to glow with pure joy once you’ve finished reading this article. Or not. Because, as you know, literally really means really. It's giving a precise description of what is actually going to happen in the realm of reality. If you mean to say metaphorically then why don’t you use the word?

There are two schools of thought. The first is that words have a self-contained, hidden essence - an “ostensible definition” - that isn't susceptible to a posteriori tinkering. Literally means really; in real life; not metaphorically. This is set and unchanging. You understand meaning by following granite-set, pre-existing rules of interpretation.

The second school holds that meaning is determined by usage. According to this theory, words and phrases have no inherent meaning. They are hollow shells: vessels to be filled with usage in the everyday reality of a given community. Village x may use the word differently to village y and its meaning will change accordingly. Though the original usage of “literally” was the inverse of “figuratively”, in modern “street America” it means the inverse of the inverse. Literally means figuratively. Proponents of this “forms of life” theory, notably Wittginstein¹, see this as a description of the real rather than a norm to be supported or criticized. When you are immersed in the life of a particular community or country, you implicitly understand the precise meaning of terms. If modern Americans want to invert the previous meaning of certain words, then that is a natural consequence of the dynamism of language.

The natural, laissez-faire, “free market” development of English is one of its most endearing features. No government institute tells us the parameters of “real English”. There is no French, top down, elitist approach² and though some may mourn the death of certain forms of speech, it is more than made up for by the creative fruits of freedom. In my writings, I enjoy creating new words and resurrecting antique phraseology and the liberty afforded to me by my mother tongue means that I do so shorn of the criticism of the reader.

But though English linguistic-libertarianism is both exciting and impossible to contain from on high, it has its limits. Feeling that certain words and phrases should have a reserved meaning, Philosopher/university professor Simon Cushing³ takes issue with the full implications of the Wittgensteinian view. He gives the example of “literally”, above articulated, as well the phrase “beg the question”⁴. While in philosophical circles, this expression has traditionally had a precise, clearly-bounded meaning, in common parlance it has come to mean “raises the question” or “makes you think of a further question”. The common man, hoping to convey that meaning, could simply say “Your point raises the question”, but instead they chose to raid the locked safe of clearly defined terms and polluted the sea of precise understanding. Philosophers, hoping to use that phrase in its originally intended form, may, through its contemporaneous usage, beg more questions in the mind of the listener.

Indeed it is here that we see the full collateral damage of laissez-faire linguistics. Though literal freedom of expression is life-affirming, all ideologies are susceptible to extreme implementation. “Literally” and “beg the question” may be Simon Cushing’s “pet peeves”, subverting, as they do, clarity of expression and precision of meaning. But mine is “genocide”, a word that has gone from describing the worst human crime imaginable, the Nazi slaughter of the 6 million in extermination camps, to mere evidence of civilian deaths in war⁵. Although all innocent deaths in conflict are to be mourned, evidence of those deaths alone clearly and obviously fails to amount to genocide, both as defined in the official international definition or more relevantly, according to the original meaning of that term. If the increasingly disturbing modern usage of “genocide” is to be believed, namely that all civilian deaths in war amount to genocide, then all war is genocide. If that be so, then the Nazis and their protegees in Rwanda are no more guilty of genocide than Winston Churchill or Barack Obama, a proposition which is as absurd as it is offensive.

This is the problem with Wittgenstein. It is descriptively so that words change meaning and that at the same time, within different communities, the same words can have distinct usages. To complain about this can be likened to complaining about the British weather. But, as Cushing says, there are some words that must be “reserved” else we do great, irreparable damage to our discourse. To say that genocide is equal to war is problematic not only because it is imprecise (what term do we now use to describe real 1940s genocides and bring those responsible to justice?) but more importantly because genocide is a term which brings with it extreme moral turpitude. To commit genocide is to condemn the author as being the worst of humanity. War, though tragic, doesn’t suggest that connotation. Wars can be just. Wars can be in self-defence, notwithstanding that they inevitably bring the death of innocents.

Although it is generally true that words must be interpreted in their used context, not all meanings change naturally and innocently. Just as a court witness may fake empathy or a pained Seneca may be stoic, so meanings can be intentionally changed with maleficent intent. Contrary to the general Wittgensteinian description. such meanings can be devised in one’s internal, mental world then disseminated vexatiously. Genocide is a perfect illustration of this. Genocide’s sudden, intolerable change of definition in the early 2000s came about as an act of deliberate strategy, done with the nefarious intent of blacklisting a particular nation. It is one thing for language to evolve as a matter of natural genealogy or authored creativity, but quite another for meanings and their related emotional states to be intentionally hijacked for ill. Through malicious misinterpretation, the meanings of words become not only imprecise, but unusable. Meaningful communication becomes extinct.

[To continue reading this chapter of my new book, I will have to ask you to become a paid subscriber. Consider it to be a book purchase. Thanks for your consideration.]