"Bigotry" is a term no less beset with problems than "racism," and like the latter, there is no definition of the former that promises to be to the mutual satisfaction of all interested parties.
In his "All of the President's Bigoted Men," Selwyn Duke articulates a profoundly daring, exceptionally perceptive, and highly intelligent case for the pivotal role that race plays in the lives, not only of the Obamas and Gateses of the world, but of blacks generally. That race is of categorical importance to blacks explains why, for instance, that in spite of their tendency to be culturally conservative, blacks continue to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats.
In spite of my admiration for Duke's intellectual honesty and moral courage — virtues that, regrettably, are in exceedingly short supply among individuals of all races, and at no time more so than when the issue of race rears its imposing head — and while I sympathize with the thrust or spirit of his analysis, to its details I must take (qualified) exception.
First of all, Duke, to his credit, recognizes that among the Left's vast arsenal of armaments, the term "racism" remains the most deadly weapon of choice. Equally to Duke's credit is his determination to insure that his exposition remain free of it so as to simultaneously divest "racism" of its power while neutering those who can't resist using it to destroy their opponents. However, what Duke takes with one hand, I fear, he may give back with another, for in place of "racism" Duke substitutes "bigotry," another term that figures in no small part in the leftist lexicon.
"Bigotry" is a term no less beset with problems than "racism," and like the latter, there is no definition of the former that promises to be to the mutual satisfaction of all interested parties: one's man "bigot" is another man's "realist." No where in his essay does Duke provide us with an explicit definition of "bigotry," but from its content it is, I think, possible to abstract three conditions that must be satisfied for one to be a "bigot." It would appear that in Duke's estimation, President Obama, Sonia Sotomayor, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., and "black liberals" generally are "bigoted" because: (1) they possess a heightened racial awareness; (2) they attach categorical importance to race; and (3) they are distrustful of whites.
Now, "bigotry" is widely regarded, and presumably regarded by Duke, as a pejorative: no one wants to be called a "bigot." "Bigotry" is deemed a profound character flaw, but it is unclear how meeting any of these conditions can constitute a moral defect. Racial awareness, especially in a multi-racial society like the United States, is inevitable and, thus, unobjectionable. And even if a heightened racial awareness (condition #1), including one that is elevated to the point of reading a racial subtext underlying every passage of life (condition #2), is the function of an inadequate intellectual grasp of oneself and one's world, this no more than any other intellectual error comes remotely close to establishing any moral inadequacies.
Granted, the distrust that black leftists display toward whites at first glance appears a plausible candidate for "bigotry," but this semblance of plausibility can be preserved only if blacks have no reason to be distrustful toward whites. If there is cause for distrust, then there is no bigotry of which to speak. My suspicion is that Duke believes that there is no such cause, that "black liberals" are self-delusional, the bearers of racial paranoia. If so, then accuse them of this, and not the woefully unenlightening epithet of "bigotry." Duke could conceivably go beyond this and charge "black liberals" with deliberately fostering racial ill-will among blacks so as to advance their own professional and other interests. If the allegation could be shown to be true (and with the greatest of ease, it could), then his targets would be guilty of dishonesty, manipulation, greed, recklessness, and any number of other vices; Duke should then accuse them of these, but not "bigotry."
These are some of the issues that Duke must unpack if he stands a chance of sustaining his case that "black liberals" ("leftists" is a more accurate term to describe those of whom Duke speaks) are "bigoted."
But there is more.
Duke confidently asserts that it is because race for them trumps all other considerations that blacks who are otherwise relatively culturally conservative continue to vote for left-wing Democrats. This is doubtless true, but only in a sense. The primary impression that Duke conveys is that color — a biological phenomenon — is the supreme value for "black liberals." Yet the notion that race is only a matter of color is a function of what I have elsewhere referred to as White Ignorance. For many, and perhaps most, blacks, race is ultimately ideological. That is, race encompasses color, but it is not equivalent to it: color is necessary, but it is not sufficient.
For "black liberals," race is just as much and perhaps more about values, mannerisms, ways of speaking, and attitudes, than color. This explains why blacks distinguish those who are "authentically black" from those who aren't. This also accounts for why particularly dark-skinned blacks like Clarence Thomas — and all conservative and libertarian blacks, regardless of their complexion — are vilified by "black liberals" and judged by them as "not really black." And this finally explains why a light complexioned, bi-racial presidential candidate like Barack Obama could elicit rapturous adulation from nearly 98% of all black voters whereas a darker complexioned mono-racial candidate like an Alan Keyes or Thomas Sowell would be lucky to get a fraction of that.
To reiterate, both compositionally and substantively Selwyn Duke's writings on race are admirable. Hence, the foregoing criticisms should be understood for what they are, constructive but friendly remarks aimed at keeping the conversation going.
Despite your incessant insistence to the contrary, Mr. Kerwick, words in the English language actually DO have meanings. Literal meanings. Concrete meanings. Meanings that describe and define behavior and actions. Your desire to eradicate words that you deem naughty or not adequately descriptive (in an Orwellian “freedom is slavery” kind of sense) does not and should not have any bearing on those who, being acquainted with the English language and the definitions of the words and vocabulary contained therein, apply the actual meanings of actual words to the actual behavior of an individual or group of people and then simply use the actual word whose actual defintion is consistent with the actual behavior of individuals and groups of people to describe said individuals or groups of people.
Do you know something? People who have legitimate mistrust of other racial groups because of past mistreatment and are motivated by that mistrust to dislike members of those other racial groups and to cluster in racial homogeneity and discriminate against members of those other racial groups, are still “racists” regardless of the justification (real or imagined) for their behavior. The very much non-negotiable, literal, real, dictionary definition of the word “racism” is descriptive of their behavior.
Like it or not, words have meanings, and you are stuck with them. Whether one chooses to use the words as an epithet or term of endearment does not in any way change the meaning of the word or the accuracy or legitimacy of its use. If you want to have a discussion about the motivations for the racial attitudes of people of various races and ethnicities and colors (whether you want to call their behavior “racist” or “bigoted” or “adulation” or “solidarity”), by all means have one. But do not try to force your Orwellian counter-language and semantic gymnastics onto others as if it were an immutable fact (or even a modestly interesting proposal) – it is not.
Mr. Mulligan,
I have not rebuttals, but questions. Let’s suppose it’s extremely unlikely that Dr. Kerwick’s proposal to retire the words “racism” and “bigotry” will ever go anywhere. What’s wrong with his making the case? Is your objection any different from saying “why publish all of these conservative essays, anyway? Everyone knows they will never be part of the mainstream.”
On the other hand, the proverbial “n” word has been all but retired. This happened not because of any action taken by the folks at Merriam-Webster, but by general consensus.
I am just wondering. I appreciate your comment.
When I say “not part of the mainstream” I expect this characterization is open to challenge. But you get the point.
Sorry for the serial posting, but this is very interesting. Suppose we even agree that no one is within his rights to propose avoiding certain words in all circumstances. It is still true that you select words that convey what you want and only that. For example, you don’t say “paranoid” when you mean merely “nervous.”
So then Dr. Kerwick’s suggestion is something that we’re already trying to do, correct?
ruminator,
I don’t object to Dr. Kerwick taking an initiative in his own writing to go to exhaustive lengths to pile on paragraph after paragraph of descriptive language to explain the cause and motivation for a behavior or event rather than the result for the sole purpose of avoiding a word that could very succintly provide an equally, and quite probably more, accurate description of the same behavior or event. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that someone attempted to blacklist (I hope that’s still an okay word to use) a piece of language to suit an agenda. I just don’t think it makes for a particularly relevant critique of someone else’s writing who does not share Dr. Kerwick’s aversion to using perfectly legitimate, perfectly accurate words when they are appropriate.
I would venture to guess that the reason why Selwyn Duke did not labor to provide a definition of “bigoted” in his last piece is becasue “bigoted” is already a defined word – even despite not having been analyzed and then completely re-defined by Dr. Kerwick in such a way that justifies its abolishment from the English vocabulary. When I see a word used, I usually assume that it carries the standard dictionary-defined meaning and I therefore avoid the kind of ambiguity and semantic dilemmas that seem to plague the good doctor.
I do not believe we should scrub the language of “loaded” or “controversial” or “hot-button” words for any reason – be it that they offend people, or have been co-opted by certain groups and used inappropriately, or are often used inaccurately. Your final question is one of correct usage of words, not the abandonment of words altogether regardless of their accuracy or legitimacy. If a word is used as a descriptive in such a way that its standard meaning is legitimate, appropriate, and accurate in the context of what is being described, there is no conceivable reason whatsoever not to use it, or to change the subject of the discussion from effect to cause in order to make the usage of the word unnecessary.
Since Dr. Kerwick always seems to be having trouble logging into this site to post responses, and instead usually emails me when I reply to one of his articles, let me copy his reply to my first post here that he sent me via email:
From Jack Kerwick:
I tried logging into IC, but was having problems. But I couldn’t resist sending a reply to your smug, self-righteous post.
I have known plenty of people like you Mr. Mulligan, people who believe that by being abrasive, condescending, and obnoxious, you somehow establish your intellectual superiority, or at least the rational superiority of your point of view. In fact, I have a person or two like that in my very family.
At one point, I was foolish enough to attempt engaging people of this sort in honest, civil dialogue. But I have long since realized that with those who have all the answers, who are so convinced that “the truth” is so simple, so self-evident, and that everyone and anyone who doesn’t perceive it as effortlessly as they do are either idiots or liars, there can be no debate, no civility.
You don’t know how to argue, nor are you concerned with having a real dialogue; you are concerned only with showing off how intelligent and knowledgeable you think you are. But in the process, you reveal only the shallowness and crude dogmatism of your thought. For these reasons, I will not bother replying to you again.
I will make but three final comments. First, as anyone who has ever taken any introductory logic course knows, the lexical (i.e. dictionary) definition of a word is only one kind of definition among many. To suggest that because a dictionary, which is nothing more nor less than an account of how the language users at the time of its composition tend to use the words of which it consists, gives a definition of a term that the term is therefore placed beyond debate is as anti-intellectual as any position of which I can remember hearing. If this is how everyone thought, there would be no philosophy, no science, no religion, etc.
Second, thankfully, the vast majority of people, regardless of what they may claim, don’t think like you, for if the history of language shows anything, it is that language lacks the immutable character that you attribute to it: it is constantly (though not rapidly) changing.
Finally, it is easy to launch into ad hominem attacks against those with whom you disagree. It isn’t so easy to place yourself out there by making a reasoned argument that is susceptible to others’ criticisms. I am still waiting for you to post a piece at IC. Then let’s see how you fare.
Following is my response to Dr. Kerwick’s above email:
Jack,
Surely a philosophical genius such as yourself could see the hilarious irony in your resorting to name-calling and childish tantrum throwing in responding to my ostensibly “smug, self-righteous” response to your article in which you condemn another writer for refusing to conform to your standards and guidelines for the use of a piece of language? It is you, sir, who is not interested in a dialogue of any kind, civil or otherwise. You desire a monologue. You desire to make proclamations and have them blindly accepted and universally praised by all because of your perceived (and I stress that word very highly) superiority of intellect. You made that perfectly clear in your last series of emails to me in which you spoke down to me and insulted my intelligence in a very similar manner as you did in this one. It is you, sir, who is audaciously and frightfully arrogant, smug, self-righteous and pretentious, possessed of probably the most serious case of unwarranted self importance I have ever had the misfortune of witnessing in my entire (admittedly young) life.
Let me reply to each of your three final comments.
First, having graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in a business field, logic, argument, and critical thinking were required interdisciplinary courses, and I am therefore acquainted with those subjects (though admittedly at a non-expert level – I would never presume to posses such an advanced knowledge of those subjects that I may authoritatively craft universal definitions of words and proscriptions of their use). With that having been said, I repeat my assertion that the meaning of a word is decidedly not arbitrary and subjective as you argue. The lexical definition of a word may not be absolute, but it represents the most widely accepted definition of a word in general use, and is therefore instructive (if not as authoritative as the proclamations of Dr. Jack Kerwick) in determining if a word has been used properly and appropriately. To take a practical example, if someone calls me “smug”, but cannot convincingly explain how my behavior was “contentedly confident of one’s ability, superiority, or correctness; complacent”, then we can say that he is incorrect – I am not “smug”. On the other hand, if he can convincingly explain how my behavior was “contentedly confident of one’s ability, superiority, or correctness; complacent”, then we can say that he is correct – I am “smug”. If a word has been used properly and appropriately, there is no value in abandoning its use. Going back to our practical example, there is no value in removing the word “smug” from our vocabulary and instead laboring to explain the motivation and cause of my smugness rather than describe my smug behavior succinctly with a single word. It would be better to determine whether the use of the word “smug” was appropriate and accurate given the lexical definition of the term. Applying your logic to any other word in the English dictionary would seem absurd – because it is. If my disagreement with your desire to eradicate a word from usage, not only in your own writing, but in that of all others as well, makes me smug or self-righteous or otherwise bothers you, I’m afraid I can’t make any apology, but would recommend that you not expose your ideas to those outside of your own rigid ideological circle who may disagree with you – you don’t seem to handle it all that terribly well.
Second, I cannot verify whether or not the vast majority of people think like me or not, nor did I ever make such a suggestion, nor in all of my audacious arrogance would I ever presume to speak for the vast majority of people, which makes it puzzling why you would raise the question. But since we are throwing out unverifiable assertions, I will venture to guess that the vast majority of people – at least thinking, freedom-appreciating people – would disagree with your proposal to banish the words “racist” and “bigot” and all derivations thereof from the English vocabulary. If language were as arbitrary as you contend here, it would be functionally useless as a medium for communication. I repeat my assertion: words do, indeed, have meanings. Often quite static meanings. And certainly meanings firm enough in the present time to ascertain correct or incorrect, accurate or inaccurate usage of a word in its currently-accepted usage.
Finally, I did not launch into an ad hominem attack against you in my comments, though I can certainly see that you are intimately acquainted with the practice, and not just in an academic sense. And I would point out that I posted my comments in the public comments section of your piece, where any and all may criticize and scrutinize them, whereas you have never once responded to any of my comments in public, but prefer to keep your remarks private where no one else may see or criticize or scrutinize them. Allow me also to correct a bit of misinformation or perhaps ignorance on your part, as I have posted three pieces at Intellectual Conservative where any and all, including you, were, and are, free to comment. You can read them at the following links and decide for yourself how I fared:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/02/15/missing-the-point-and-asking-the-wrong-questions/
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/12/01/executive-pay-cuts/
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/06/13/the-best-tool-to-stop-illegal-immigration-that-no-one-ever-told-you-about/
P.S.
Since you always seem to have such difficulty logging into the Intellectual Conservative website, I took the liberty of posting your email in the comments section of your piece along with my response. You are more than welcome to reply via email or at the website. If you continue to have trouble logging into the website and choose to reply via email, I will post your replies to the comments section of piece as well. After all, “It isn’t so easy to place yourself out there by making a reasoned argument that is susceptible to others’ criticisms.”
Jack has very generously taken the time to reply to my last email. His response follows:
Thanks for posting my e-mail to you. If your even dreaming that I wasn’t having difficulties posting my comments in response to you, that I was just making that up for some reason, you better wake up. I was given a new password that didn’t work.
Post this too: I didnt’ even bother reading the vast majority of your last rant, for I have a life, and what little I did read was more of the same that I would expect from you, more posturing, more condescension, more abusive language, little to no thought.
Also, from now on, and in case this wasn’t clear from my last e-mail, don’t expect any replies from me to anything that you have to say. It isn’t that I believe I am smarter or necessarily more knowledgeable than anyone else when it comes to thinking about the issues about which I have written, but, rather, that unlike most people of whom I am aware, and certainly unlike you, for whom it is all so simple, so clear, I have thought about these issues in fairly unconventional ways.
Furthermore, I have been impressed with some of the insightful, thought-provoking replies that my writings have elicited. Some of the commentators have conveyed their ideas with civility and respect, and have raised for me points that I have overlooked or of which I just never noticed. You, sir, are not among this class of commentators. I won’t bother reiterating my reasons for drawing this verdict.
I take no satisfaction in having written either this e-mail or my last. I am grateful that you have read my articles, and I would like to have a dialogue, but if you insist on leveling ad hominem accusations, accusing me of “psycho babble,” and “Orwellian” double speak, and other such drivel, you will be ignored.
Don’t e-mail me again unless you want to exchange ideas.
Jack
My response to Kerwick’s last email follows:
Jack,
I was simply trying to help you out in bringing your very enlightened and high-minded discussion to the public sphere as you desire.
As it regards the rest of your email, what can I say but “ditto”. The words “psycho babble” or “Orwellian” didn’t even appear in my last email to you (nor did the words “psycho babble” appear anywhere else in my correspondence with you, for that matter), nor were any ad-hominem attacks contained therein. If this is the level of scrutiny you applied to my last email and the post before that, I’m not surprised that you utterly failed to comprehend them and instead began throwing out accusations and insults in an infantile fit of anger. Very befitting a man of your (perceived) stature, doctor.
You keep promising to stop responding to me, and I certainly hope you will keep your word. However, you should know that I will continue to respond to your public postings at Intellectual Conservative on such occasion as you should write something that I feel inclined to discuss. If you are only interested in hearing your own words in an echo chamber, and clearly you are as your latest posting at Intellectual Conservative demonstrates, post them on your own blog where you can moderate the comments and remove the ones you deem unworthy of your consideration. That is to say, all of those that disagree with you.
Take care