Whereas slurs and insults have already been declared offensive language,
While rhetorical war continues to rage in the halls of Congress, on the platforms of social media, in religious denominations and institutions of higher education, and across our dinner tables.
And labeling language remains accessible to all and avoided by few and
Whereas a high season of labeling looms (an impeachment trial, a Presidential campaign) ,
Therefore we propose to curtail labeling as a weapon against partisans.
We challenge partisans to lay down weapons of language such as, but not limited to, the following:
words containing “ism” and “ist” for example: racist sexist globalist classist elitist socialist fascist communist
words beginning with “anti” and “pro” alleging bias, for example: anti-police anti-intellectual
anti-military anti-God anti-gay anti-immigrant anti-American anti-science pro-death
words containing “phobia,” for example: homophobia xenophobia technophobia
words alleging polar positions, for example: race war/ race card class war politically correct unpatriotic radical totalitarian
[Feel free to add your own labels]
And finally, we declare zero tolerance for those that disregard this standard of decent language.
Speakers and writers armed with labeling language are a threat to civil life. “That comment was racist!” “His court decisions are anti-God.” “Your opinions instigate race war.” “That proposal is anti-immigrant!” Such comments incense our feelings more than our minds.
Labeling is a word bomb. It plants a name on an individual and sets off all the negative associations we link to that name. Instead of understanding the individual, we are distracted by the shrapnel from the bomb, the connotations of a word like “unpatriotic.”
Let’s stop the nonsense. Take a lesson from the infamous labeler Senator Joe McCarthy, who aroused terror in a free society in the 1950’s with the incendiary label “communist.” Today we regularly ignite our discourse communities with inflammatory labels. It has become more convenient to declare “–ism” or “–ist” or “–phobia” than to describe the behavior we object to. Trivializing and efficiency override reflection and explanation.
We know when a civil argument is about to leave the rails; the discharge of labels is one such occasion–a reckless acceleration that antagonists take personally. It is shorthand for claims without evidence, for headlines without the backstory, for tweet without elaboration. It is ideal for the sound bites, not civil discourse. Disarming our rhetoric can moderate brusqueness in order to pay attention and be attended to.
Every “ism” and “anti” has a story behind it, which we often dismiss with a single word. Was it “racism” that caused a police officer to shoot a woman in her home in Fort Worth last week or was that the “anti-police” bias in the reporting of the press? When a university bans a speaker because of his or her message is it “anti-intellectual,” violating free speech, or “No-platforming” excluding noxious discourse on campus (https://aeon.co/ideas/is-it-legitimate-to-ban-speakers-from-college-campuses)? The clues are in the backstory.
Most prefixed and suffixed labels are weaponized, designed to put targets on people. It defames character, only to be answered by counter-defamation or defensiveness. In neither case can meaningful dialogue ensue, only punches and counter-punches.
At the very least, we should describe behavior instead of labeling. Instead of calling a politician “anti-gay” refer to him as the opponent of civil rights legislation to protect LGTB individuals from housing discrimination. That is the kind of evidence that holds up under scrutiny. Yes, it takes more words, and the words lack punch, but that is the point. Words should be used to describe rather than punch.
And what if we own our labels? A certain majority of women want to be known as “feminists,” and yet the label can be used to construe all kinds of behavior demeaning to men, for example claiming men can not be victims of sexual harassment. Then it becomes a weapon. It is safe to own your labels, but unsafe to be labelled. Likewise many of us are happy to be politically correct, but an increasing number may consider it a kind of shaming that traps us in our casual use of language. We may be politically correct, but we don’t want that label to be used against us. Therefore, labeling could be permitted if it is self-labeling.
“To understand everything is to forgive everything” (Madame de Stael, 1766-1817), often paraphrased as “To know all is to forgive all.” Understanding nurtures patience and patience, understanding. If we take the time to tell the story or explain the behavior, and our opposition summons the patience to listen, we have the makings of dialogue. Forgiveness is found in the details. Forgiveness does not guarantee we will agree, but we might accept the good will of the other. We make a treaty, we go on.
Citizens, lay down your labels! It is a little less satisfying to reply “Can you give an example?” than to shout “elitist,” but it may open possibilities that would otherwise be closed. It takes more patience to listen to the back story than to brand a writer as “politically correct.” We appeal for zero-tolerance on name-callers. And we appeal for patience, not accusations. Accept no labels! Throw down your weaponized language! Listen to your opponents!
You might actually learn something.
Unofficial Committee for Language Disarmament