Edward Skidelsky in Prospect Magazine writes about Words that think for us . He notes a difference in our terms for moral censure:
No words are more typical of our moral culture than “inappropriate” and “unacceptable.” They seem bland, gentle even, yet they carry the full force of official power. When you hear them, you feel that you are being tied up with little pieces of soft string.
Inappropriate and unacceptable began their modern careers in the 1980s as part of the jargon of political correctness. They have more or less replaced a number of older, more exact terms: coarse, tactless, vulgar, lewd. They encompass most of what would formerly have been called “improper” or “indecent.” An affair between a teacher and a pupil that was once improper is now inappropriate; a once indecent joke is now unacceptable.
This linguistic shift is revealing. Improper and indecent express moral judgements, whereas inappropriate and unacceptable suggest breaches of some purely social or professional convention. Such “non-judgemental” forms of speech are tailored to a society wary of explicit moral language. As liberal pluralists, we seek only adherence to rules of the game, not agreement on fundamentals. What was once an offence against decency must be recast as something akin to a faux pas.
But this new, neutralised language does not spell any increase in freedom. When I call your action indecent, I state a fact that can be controverted. When I call it inappropriate, I invoke an institutional context—one which, by implication, I know better than you. Who can gainsay the Lord Chamberlain when he pronounces it “inappropriate” to wear jeans to the Queen’s garden party? This is what makes the new idiom so sinister. Calling your action indecent appeals to you as a human being; calling it inappropriate asserts official power.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Awesome point—and ugh, I catch myself using the weasel words at times!
(repent, refocus, replace….)
this is nothing new. perhaps it is just a higher level of honesty shown us by the pagans.
We christians use “moral” words like fornication and adultery and lust and when someone asks what those words actually mean, pastors respond in a way that accuses that person of looking for the legal loophole. Or… people stumble over other peoples sins and blurt out those “moral” words about others while there is nary a trip over the pornography now numbingly omnipresent in the form of turning females into near naked objects to sell stuff.
“Official power” can be used in exactly the same way using words that supposedly have more definite moral content.
repentance and acknowledgement of the damning-to-hell lack of non-relative, honest morality starts , morally, in one´s own heart.
Appropriate and proper post
It’s the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in action!
Mike, ’splain.
Never mind, got it: “The linguistic relativity principle (also known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis) is the idea that the varying cultural concepts and categories inherent in different languages affect the cognitive classification of the experienced world in such a way that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it.”
I’ve always suspected this of German.
You could extend it, of course, to cultural concepts inherent in, say, living in West Virginia. The question is: which came first, the language or something else? Once you have language in place, affectation is a two-way street.
Relating it back to topic: not sure this is true, that we are talking about the same thing. I think the new language of reproof is more power-motivated, political language. I think I agree with the post that it is meant to imply “You (the offender) are outside the camp with your behavior.” Which for me at least, always makes it worse. Just, y’know, pushes my buttons. Call me inappropriate? Ohoh. I want to start exploring the concept in more depth.
So…is it ‘inappropriate’ or ‘improper’ when one fatrs in an elevator?
“Improper” in reference to which set of rules: moral or institution? “Inappropriate” according to which system of order: moral or social? Forgive me, but when I read that the word “inappropriate”, apart from its normal contexts of being soft and gentle, is now revealed – exposed, rather – as one in that evil empire of words now called…”sinister”, I had to laugh.
To argue that is, on it’s face, is like calling Bambi a whore.
It is true, no doubt, that some people use the word strictly for institutional rules gutted of moral fundamentals, but do we really think the mass of people don’t get it that when we say “inappropriate” we’re speaking to their morals? Or that they’ve done something wrong? Let’s narrow down language. Sure. But to cast “inappropriate” as a member of some type of conspiracy vocabulary….? That just seems, haha, a little far-fetched.