I know that there is a very famous quote form Confucius about how wrong names prevent us from dealing properly with things, but it appears the citizens of the US have taken this advice tot he opposite extreme and confused names with the things themselves, giving inordinate power to names.

I was struck by this when I was reading some online message boards. I saw it coming when someone had the bad judgment to call something a "comic book". Immediately a dozen people chimed in insisting that it was a "graphic novel". A few tried to draw a distinction, arguing that comics are shorter, flimsier and published on a schedule while "graphic novels" are better bound and irregularly published, but they were undercut by their fellows who pretty much insisted there are no "comic books", just "graphic novels"

The truth is even more simple. There were "comic books", but then, as a step in the expanding immaturity of our culture, we decided that adults should read picture books too. However, as the process of infantilizing adults is incomplete, there was still a stigma attached to grown men reading comic books, so they had to insist they were reading something profound, and thus "the graphic novel" was born. Amid protestations that dragged in the Bayeux tapestry and illuminated manuscripts, even the art of Lichtenstein, they announced they would never do anything as silly as waste time with comic books, they were engaged in the mature pass time of reading "graphic novels".

Which actually serves to illustrate the entire reason words have become so significant in modern America. We are a culture which is both infinitely offended and infinitely afraid of giving offense. You can see it in the development of our legal system, what was once a system designed to remedy monetary loss or physical harm began to expand to cover emotional harm and then simple discomfort or offense. And we now have a system where acts which were once considered everyday occurrences, rendering aid to a stranger or complimenting a coworker, are now actionable offenses carrying hefty liability.

But the legal system is itself just a barometer. As the rational, rules driven, Newtonian world of the Enlightenment and the Age fo Reason drove the codification of the common law, and the adoption of Blackstone's principle driven view of law. And as the socializing reform philosophy of FDR drove the expansion of liability law into a form of social insurance a decade or two later, so too it is our infinitely touchy culture which ahs created litigation over hurt feelings and not he other way around.

But what created this culture of offense? What drove us to reshape ourselves into a culture so profoundly moved by the thought of personal offense?

It is not an easy question. Partly because it makes so little sense. Most cultures which place so high a premium on not offering offense, for example medieval Japan, also have a corresponding emphasis on shame. Which only makes sense. The Japanese need to not offer offense was not driven so much by pride as by the need to avoid shame. Offending another could bring shame upon both of you, you for your boorish behavior and him from the act itself. We have no sense of shame, as should be obvious from watching daytime TV or reading a tabloid. Even the outer limits of the shame envelope, open sexual deviance, publicly proclaiming erectile dysfunction, siring multiple out of wedlock children with several partners, all of it has been made acceptable some time ago. Shame has disappeared from American culture. And yet the emphasis on offense has remained, and grown even greater.

But how does one offend someone with no shame?

That is what makes this a truly bizarre question. We take offense at things which do not instill shame. Those who read comics are freely admitting they do so, they feel no shame, but they still take offense at anyone who refuses to call them "graphic novels". Likewise, black Americans feel no shame at being black, yet some take great offense at those who refuse to use the politically correct term, currently "African American". In other words, people are being offended by the words themselves, not by anything the words actually mean.

Which helps us to figure out the cause, or rather causes.

One cause I alluded to above, a linger sense of shame. Even in our shame-free culture, many have yet to adopt a fully libertine view of the world. Despite the best efforts of those who shape our culture, many people still feel embarrassed at the antics of the Hollywood elite and others. Some still feel antiquated values have some meaning, and so we still have people who feel the need to justify themselves. And thus we have the comic book readers who insist on the label "graphic novel". They may not themsleves feel shame, or perhaps they do, over adopting what was once a childhood pursuit, but when they encounter someone who still calls their reading materials comic books, they feel that the other might be judging them, and so they take offense.

However, that does a poor job of explaining black American insistence on "African American", Indian insistence on "Native American" and others. They can't secretly fear someone using "black" or "Indian" is a covert racist, as those were never racist terms (at least not in recent memory), but were themselves simply the proper terms at one time*. No, the offense is of a different nature, and has a different origin.

And, strangely, that origin is good will.

You see, there were very real problems in the US concerning race, sex, religion and a lot of other issues. But, following some very successful movements, most of those barriers were broken down. Racism, at least official, public racism, ended. The same for government enforced sexism. Even privately held racism and sexist views declined steeply, though that is not, properly speaking, the interest of the state. So, once the general good will of most citizens had righted the wrongs of racism and sexism, the groups which had fought these battle found they had little left to do.

Some members took the hint, saw that they had won, and so they left the group, arguing that there was nothing left for them to do. Others, used to the struggle found they could not quit as the struggle itself had become more important than the goals. Others, seeing the remaining traces of private racism, or seeing problems unrelated to racism but affecting their specific group more than others, decided there was still more to do. And finally, some, fond fo wielding power, decided they could use the group as a tool to gain more power.

And so we began to see the birth of the continually offended pressure group and the struggle over trivialities. We began to see the ever changing name of black Americans. We saw the arguments over improper proportions of every imaginable group on television, in athletic team management, in college faculties. And so on and so. Every group knew that the key to gaining power was to never be satisfied. And so they began to take offense at things they did not truly find offensive. Things of little importance, yet things visible enough that they could be used to fuel yet another power grab.

And from these pressure groups, the habit spread to the culture at large. Some did it in self defense. Seeing that the minority groups were getting special privileges, sometimes at their expense, they decided that the only remedy was to push back themselves, and the only way to dot hat was to take offense. Others adopted the culture of offense because they constantly saw it in the society around them and decided it was simply the way things worked. And some adopted it simply for selfish gain, seeing the success it brought to others, they decided to cash in while they could.

Whatever the cause, it became the dominant tone of our culture. Not just the ease with which everyone in America takes offense, but the great pains everyone takes so as not to offend another.Or rather, not to offer some types of offense. Which is the truly bizarre part of all this. While we are very careful to always use the correct euphemisms for minorities, for comic books, for some varieties of art and literature, and whatever other particular subjects are covered by this sort of term, we are not a very polite people in any other regard. Inf act, as we become more juvenile, we become much more thoughtless, running over one anothe rin public, loudly shouting into cell phones, pushing, making rude comments and so on.

Then again, maybe it isn't so odd. We are acting the way children did in my youth. Thoughtless and impolite, but ever careful not to say a "dirty word". So maybe that is the secret of all this. We are, as I have alleged before, growing ever more juvenile, but, rather than the traditional sexual and scatological dirty words children once tried to avoid, we have adopted the sexual, racial, and cultural "dirty words" of the PC movement.

We even read comic books, just like children.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Yes, "black" was at one time considered offensive, which is why the black power movement adopted it, trying to turn a term of opprobrium into a term of pride. It was actually a very wise decision, as I described before. However, since the 1970's at least, black has hardly been an insulting term, so it clearly cannot be a signal of secret racism.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

In the footnote I link to a comment I posted to my own post "Badly Chosen PC Words". As I have no direct control over comments, I figure I should reproduce it here, just in case something happens to it. It is in response to another comment, and explains why I thought the constant changing of names by blacks is a bad idea:

I recall many stories of eastern Euopean Jews responding to being called "yid" by correcting the pronunciation to "yeed" (which is the yiddish word for Jew, and the origin of the antisemitic slur).

That always struck me as the best way to respond to a racial slur, to simply accept it and turn it into something neutral.

The gay groups have quite effectively done with is Q-U-E-E-R (TH won't let me type the word). Blacks did it once with "black". But now we see groups forgetting how effective this tactic is and instead insisting on the right to change their name monthly.

It is just absurd, and it makes those insisting on constant name changes seem excessively sensitive.

So now should the comment be deleted somehow, at least the text is still available.

POSTSCRIPT II

It is actually hard to tell in any given case what the reason behind a specific circumlocution is. Most often it really is simple conformity, one individual avoiding a rod he knows is "bad". However, the reason behind the adoption of this word is almost always some sort of power play on the part of the terminally offended. They are showing their influence by manipulating how words are used. In addition, by making the use of the proper word almost impossible through constant changes, they make sure most people are constantly offending someone by using an outdated term.

On the other hand, there are a few cases such as those I described where I group uses a neologism to hide their own shame or to avoid criticism. NAMBLA's "Man-Boy Love" probably falls in this category. Calling it sex with children or pederasty is to invite criticism. "Man Boy love" doe snot invite such open criticism (though their use of it has now made it hard to describe a perfectly proper love of say a father for his son without sending like a pedophile). But even that is in some ways a power play, as by deflecting criticism, they move themselves closer to the mainstream and basically bully and trick their way to being accepted.

So I suppose, at its root, all such word manipulation is about power over others.

POSTSCRIPT III

I almost entitled this "Taking Humpty Dumpty Seriously" as it appears that is precisely what modern America has done.

It is an oft quoted conversation between Alice and Humpty Dumpty, but it really does seem to fit the modern world view quite well:

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Of course, the moderns seem to have missed that fact Carroll is not agreeing with Humpty Dumpty, and, taken seriously, his rule makes language all but meaningless. But it really does seem to describe the modern world view. Not only dot hey want to be master over words, but they seem to think being master over words will make them master over everything else. As if renaming everything will allow them to change everything.

Unfortunately for them, reality is much less malleable than words, or even than their fellow citizens.

POSTSCRIPT IV

Before I get an angry response from comic book readers, I have no problem with adults engaging in juvenile pass times for relaxation. I sometimes play computer games, I read pulp science fiction, and I find some of my son's toys quite amusing. I don't read comics, but only because they have confused "grim" and "depressing" with "mature", and so they stopped being interesting, for the most part. So I have no problem with adults amusing themselves with any harmless diversion they choose. However, at least be man enough to admit you are playing games or reading a comic. Don't tell me about "immersive interactive experiences" or "graphic novels". Not only are they lies to make you sound less juvenile, but the very sound of the words takes all the fun out of the activity.

POSTSCRIPT V

It is not exactly the same point, but I ran across a post on a very similar topic. Actually, it points out a different abuse of language, one more focused on changing perception than generating grievances. It is still a power play, but in this case one intended to exonerate international thugs, rather than secure political power. Still, a good post, and an interesting one in light of what I wrote above.