Tags: Politics   Rants


"So, let's talk instead about the flexibility of language, linguistic elasticity, if you like." "We are defined by our language, if you will."

If our language defines us, then there's been a lot of people tinkering with definitions. Camps are being created, teams forming up, and new cults being created where there shouldn't be. The new cult of Darwinism is possibly the fastest growing cult today. Well, it would be if the term Darwinism was meaningful, and if you ignore the fact that it's a cult created by those who don't subscribe to whatever that cult is supposed to preach. Imagine you wear blue t-shirts all the time, and I pronounce that you are a Bluist. You and I are instantly divided and basic psychology takes over from there. You may say, "What the heck is a Bluist?", but it doesn't matter. You're now a Bluist. Being on different teams, we begin to generalize about each other. Bluists don't like salad, Bluists always lose at video games, Bluists become enraged at the sight of the colour red, and so on. It becomes easy to act without compassion towards you, all because I put you in an arbitrary team.

And "Darwinism" is an arbitrary team. In contrast, I think that "Social Darwinism" definitely has meaning. People who condone genocide are Social Darwinists, but it's more meaningful to say that they condone genocide instead of using an obscure label, isn't it? As far as I can tell, a Darwinist is someone who has taken a biology class or two, and passed! If you understand evolution and accept the evidence for how it happens, then you may find yourself labelled a Darwinist. In truth, you aren't a Darwinist, you're someone who can evaluate and learn from evidence. The term suggests that Charles Darwin was the one and only source for evolution and its evidence. It ignores the countless other scientists who contribute to this single field of science. But if you acknowledge their work, then you lessen the visceral impact of the "Darwinist" tag. The label implies that one follows the words of only one man, to the letter, and without question, which is not a very good way to live. Do Darwinists think this way? Trick question! There's no such thing as Darwinism.

Then why is it acceptable to label people as Darwinists? It's not just religious fundamentalists that use the term, you might even hear scientists referring to themselves as Darwinists! Why?? Shouldn't we also hear about people who believe in gravity as Newtonists or Gravitivists, from the cults of Newtonism or Gravitivism? People who believe in chemistry as believers of Chemistrism? Anyone who designs a nuclear reactor must surely worship at the altar of Physicism. It all sounds so mystical, it's easy to laugh at it! But that's the point, I guess.

If you can't argue with someone based on the content of their message, then you can use cheap tricks to make them look silly. It can be difficult to refute someone who is credited as being a Biologist. Call him a Darwinist and suddenly he seems like a complete loon! Don't agree with a Physicist? Call him a believer of Gravitivism. Oh what a quack!

So when the so-called Darwinists embrace the title and start using it themselves, what's going on? I think it's the same thing that gay people did with the words queer, dyke, and so on. What's the name of the annual lesbian parade in Toronto? The Dyke March! What used to be a hateful word has been completely neutered by those who it was intended to hurt. Take ownership of the labels and they will gradually lose their hateful meanings. We are defined by our language, so we must try to control how language is used about ourselves. Is Darwinist an inherently hateful term? I guess not. It can be understood to mean that Darwin was a great man worthy of respect. Is it so bad for biologists to adopt the name? It's certainly more friendly than most racist terms! The strategy to disarm the word is probably a good one, as long as it is eventually abolished.

When I read news, blogs, articles, tweets, and hand-outs from people on the street, labels are red flags. When someone uses cheap labels to reference a person or group, you know there's something fishy about the author's motivation. Leftist (Leftism?), Neo-Cons (New Conservatives, because old is comfortable and new is scary), New Atheist (disbelieving for the second time?), Marxist (because we all know socialism is evil), Capitalist (only fools make money), Abortionist (who surely do it for fun), etc. These labels are smoke and mirrors used by lazy people who would rather not address underlying issues. Call someone a Marxist or Capitalist if you don't want to actually talk about public policy issues.

If you can't write about something without resorting to these manipulative, emotional words, then you probably don't have anything to say.

Now I must go to the gym to lift weights in an effort to make fools of those stupid Gravitivists! If the weights are so heavy, why do they go UP? Haha!