Well, we lost the battle over flammable, didn't we? It was predicted at the time (early 1970s) that sooner or later some unlettered PR person for a children's nightie manufacturer would coin the word inflammable, believing that it meant "No, it won't burst into flame if little Nathan (or, as it might be, Victoria) stands too close to the electric fire." And now I have seen the word applied to sofas. Usage that denies etymology is fraught with perils.
Not so dangerous, but equally unpleasant, is the now ubiquitous adjective homophobic. It is used to describe people who hate, or even just dislike, homosexual people, but both elements derive from the Greek (phobos, fear, and homos, same), so all that silly word means is "fear of the same". It would be a useful adjective to apply to those worthy people who get a fit of the wobbles when the programme they are watching on the telly turns out to be a repeat after all, but that is not how it is used.
The language could certainly do with a word that clearly meant "hatred of people who are sexually attracted to people of their own sex", but homophobia simply doesn't do the job. It, and its adjective, are not words. They are labels, which come with a whole set of prejudices inherent in the gum on the back which save anyone actually having to think.
Words like homophobia and flammable do not come into the language spontaneously. They are invented words which sound and look right to tabloid journalists and advertisers. They creep into our brains like viruses, because they are the product of people whose sole job is to manipulate our minds by their cunning use of language. And they are succeeding, to the extent that some of us can no longer distinguish paedophiles from paediatricians.
I used to be a child, which is why I am worried. Without language, whom should I trust?
No comments:
Post a Comment