By Walter E. Block
People should be free to ruin the English language if they wish to do so. Bell Hooks wrote in all lower-case letters, and had done so for years, even before the plague of wokesterism arose. She signed her name “bell hooks.”
Many people no longer refer to he or him as inclusive of both genders. They resort to “his or hers” or, if they really want to virtue signal, they employ only “she” or “her.” Nowadays, some transgendered folk insist upon the plural when referring to them, individually: we should refer to such people as them, theirs. The latest off this particular turnip truck is to capitalize the word “black” when denoting people, albeit not to colors of inanimate objects, such as cars or shoes. Some in this vein now want to capitalize “white,” also, again only when indicating people. But the radical elements in this movement insist that only black be capitalized, not white. Why? That is because capitalization implies greater respect and since whites are unfairly and systematically privileged, this evens up the score. Whoa, I shouldn’t have said “systematically.” That is no longer politically correct. A thousand pardons. I should have written “systemically.” Sorry, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
This is all so silly. The purpose of language, well, one of the main purposes people have when they speak or write, is – wait for it – to communicate. Each of these deviations from traditional language reduces the ability of this institution to help us verbally interconnect with each other. At the extreme, we will each have our own personal language and we will truly enter the “Tower of Babel” where no communication at all will be possible. Happily, we are nowhere near that point, yet, but we are definitely trending in that direction.
Another aspect of this silliness is that the proponents are very often hoist by their own petards. For example, take the word “woman” or the plural, “women.” These words are favored by feminists vis a vis “men” or “men and women,” or “ladies and gentlemen.” But notice their last syllables! They indicate the hated males of the species. I therefore suggest, in the interests of further screwing up language, “wo” instead of “woman,” and “wos” instead of “women.” Here is my suggestion for the supplantation of the evil word “person.” For the same reason, this should henceforth be replaced by “perdaughter.”
Then we have the phenomenon which decrees that “colored person” be banned, and “person of color” be substituted for it. This despite the ongoing existence of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Presumably, the NAACP is now a racist organization. Similarly, the word “Negro” is nowadays not acceptable by socialists and cultural Marxists. Tell that to the presumably racist organizations such as the National Council of Negro Women, Inc. (NCNW) and the United Negro College Fund (UNCF).
Why are the wokesters trying to foist these changes on those of us in flyover country? They have the mistaken view that language has some sort of magic power. If people can be compelled to use “anti-racist,” or “anti-sexist” language, they will be more likely to vote Democratic, or Socialist. This is just magical thinking. Resentment is the far more likely result.
But we live in a (mostly) free country. If those on the coasts wish to ruin our language, no law should stop them from so doing. On the other hand, no legislation, or ruling from the public sector, such as from universities, should compel anyone to go along with this madness.
According to that old childhood refrain, “Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never harm me.” The politically correct would do well to comprehend the wisdom thereby imparted.
Pegs
JUNE 28, 2022, Oyin Adedoyin, Race on Campus: Should the 'B' in 'Black' Be Capitalized?
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/the-case-for-black-with-a-capital-b.html
Bell Hooks
Woke Warriors aren't interested in fostering communication. Rather, they are trying to advance their agenda by intentionally thwarting communication. As George Orwell observed: "Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
Their New Left philosophy and its treatment of language is derived from the primitivist/egalitarian doctrines of Critical Theory (popularized by Fromm and Marcuse in the early 1960s) and from the nihilistic doctrines of Deconstructionism (popularized by Derrida in the late 1960s).
The basic view underlying CT is that social obligations and conventions (at least in a free society) just get in the way of the realization of one's inner desires. This implies a severe devaluation of the rational discourse that would normally be considered a necessity for voluntary social cooperation. In the case of Marcuse, it also leads to the doctrine that it is better to shout down your capitalist opponents than to endure the "repressive toleration" of trying to persuade them of anything.
Deconstructionists have a radical skepticism about linguistic meaning. Words are supposedly just tools used by those in power to manipulate everyone else's behavior (often without their victims being conscious of the manipulation) and have no clear referent in reality anyways, so giving favored groups the power to redefine words to suit their whims while suppressing words that are peculiar to the discourse of their critics is merely a convenient means for empowering the favored groups.
Way too rational.