Don’t tell me what to do

29 11 2016

A few I-define-you examples (leftover from yesterday because I couldn’t pull it together, man, so quit bothering me, all right?!):

*Consider the reaction to fat women who are unashamed that they’re fat, who have the temerity to insist that they are human beings who don’t need your approval, thankyouverymuch: it is unbelievably nasty.

*Remember when Obama said that if he’d have had a son, he might have looked like Trayvon Martin? That seemed to me a simple, poignant, observation, but holy shit, the number of (white) people who lost their shit in response to that—I couldn’t understand it.

But now, I think that (some white) people were pissed that Obama identified with a young black man, and in doing so, reminded them that he himself was, in fact a black man. And, too, maybe his empathic imagination was just too much for (some white) people, serving as a rebuke to their own, narrow judgements.

*Oh, and this is one I remembered as I was getting in bed: Famed anti-Semite and Viennese mayor Karl Lueger responded to those who complained he was too friendly with Jews by saying “I decide who is a Jew.”

As Ta-Nehisi Coates noted in his commentary on this (and other, similar, instances):

When I was young man, I studied history at Howard University. Much of my studies were focused on the black diaspora, and thus white racism. I wish I had understood that I was not, in fact, simply studying white racism, but the nature of power itself. I wish I had known that the rules that governed my world echoed out into the larger world. I wish I had known how unoriginal we really are.

~~~

What do we do with all of this? I don’t know. That you are bothered when I define myself does not mean that I shouldn’t define myself.

Is it enough to recognize that there will be bother, conflict, and so prepare for it? Is there a way through this conflict? I don’t know.

But as a matter of justice, as a matter of human being, each one of us gets to claim that humanness for ourselves.

Advertisements




What are words/If you don’t really mean them

3 01 2012

Hippy nude yer. Or something.

Anyway, words. Specifically: home in/hone in. Every so often a new word or phrase creeps into the (more-or-less mass) media, hangs out for awhile, then fades back into either occasional use or goes away completely.

Remember paradigm and paradigm shift? Still around, but less ubiquitous. It also was yanked out of Kuhn and made to apply to shifts which were, in Kuhnian terms, decidedly not paradigmatic, but that’s how it goes when jargon moves the mainstream.

I also recall peregrination—a fine word—and one which now resides mainly in dictionaries.

Unpack and problematize both wandered out of the academy for awhile, but are now safely tucked back inside. And every so often someone pulls epistemology out of her sleeve, but then one gets caught up in questions of the existence of the sleeve and is it even possible even to pull knowledge out of clothing and, well, you see why epistemology prefers to hide out in back corridors of academia.

There are others, which I can’t think of offhand. Oh, Look, is currently quite popular among opiners, mainly as a way to say I am done talking about this and/or I am [no longer] willing to explain why I believe this. I think this augers the return of Listen as a stylistic alternative.

Now, about home in/hone in. The correct term is home in, as in, nearing a target or center or, y’know, home, but about half of the time I see the term the word hone is incorrectly substituted.

Hone: to sharpen,  make ready, as in, hone a sword or honing one’s rhetorical skills. Not to lock on target.

Yes, this is a simply matter of wrong word use, based on a spelling error.

Still.

I’m half a word snob. I try to avoid split infinitives, irregardless, and journaling; distinguish between disinterested and uninterested; prefer the original term empathic to its more recent commonalization as empathetic; anguish over repeatedly confusing compose and comprise; and try very hard to use the correct version of lie and lay. On the other hand, I’m not opposed to neologisms on principle (although some in practice), understand that usage changes (e.g. Let’s do lunch), do not disdain all cliches, enjoy playing around with words in casual circumstances (see: commonalization) and quite like that English is a scavenger language.

Still.

Hone is its own word, with its own meaning. Given that there is no necessary, absolute, and eternal meaning to hone, could we please please pretty please try to uphold its definition as is?

We already have the term you’re looking for: Home in.

Thank you.