Still at Economist, I come across this piece I find interesting. It’s about how people name various things, physical or metaphysical. It goes along well with my earlier post on defining terms:
A menagerie of monikers
Most labels are misleading, sometimes grossly so. Find new ones in 2010REMEMBER the Levant? Or the Old Dominions, the Trucial States and the Far East? If so, speak softly. Labels are handy ways of sorting out countries by history or geography. But lazily conceived and out-of-date ones are offensive and misleading.
Some reek of colonialism (“Black Africa”) or lingering imperialism (“the near abroad”, Russians’ term for the former Soviet empire). Sheer diversity makes “Eastern Europe” an unhelpful way of talking about the ex-communist countries (see article). Donald Rumsfeld’s description of anti-American “Old Europe” and pro-American “New Europe” was vivid but equally wide of the mark: Atlanticism and opposition to it are present on both sides of the old Iron Curtain.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
January:08:2010 - 11:14
‘You are sad,’ the Knight said in an anxious tone: ‘let me sing you a song to comfort you.’
‘Is it very long?’ Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day.
‘It’s long,’ said the Knight, ‘but very, VERY beautiful…The name of the song is called “HADDOCKS’ EYES.”‘
‘Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?’ Alice said, trying to feel interested.
‘No, you don’t understand,’ the Knight said, looking a little vexed. ‘That’s what the name is CALLED. The name really IS “THE AGED AGED MAN.”‘
‘Then I ought to have said “That’s what the SONG is called”?’ Alice corrected herself.
‘No, you oughtn’t: that’s quite another thing! The SONG is called “WAYS AND MEANS”: but that’s only what it’s CALLED, you know!’
‘Well, what IS the song, then?’ said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.
‘I was coming to that,’ the Knight said. ‘The song really IS “A-SITTING ON A GATE”: and the tune’s my own invention.’
***
The point of this dialogue (from Through the Looking-Glass) is to demonstrate the difference between what a thing IS, what its NAME is, what its CALLED, and what its NAME is CALLED.
Though it may seem trivial, these matters seem to go to the very heart of Islam itself. For example, what does it mean when the Koran employs the term, “Jew”? Is it talking about someone who calls himself a Jew, someone who is called a Jew by others, someone who engages in Jewish practices, or the Jews of the period the Koran describes, specifically the Jewish sect in Yemen that conquered much of Arabia in the generation before Muhammed?
In my limited experience, imams don’t like such questions. Has anyone had better luck?
January:08:2010 - 13:42
Oh, there are lots of people who don’t like those kinds of questions or the facts surrounding how we use names! I had a lot of (somewhat perverse) fun in college with professors married to particular themes.
January:08:2010 - 13:47
Such as?
January:08:2010 - 17:23
Funny 1st 2nd and 3rd world were based on per capita income not the Cold War as is suggested in the article.
The observation on Canada as part of the “white Commonwealth” is very apropros. We are increasing brown and diversified so that the anti-Anglo theme of certain strains of Quebec nationalism and separatism ring hollow–”Les Anglais” the oppressors, no longer exist as originally formulated. Les Anglais are as likely to be Chinese, South East Asian, South Asian, Eastern European, or other rather than a Brit.
January:08:2010 - 18:19
Oh, the first that comes to mind is a Psychology course in which I (along with an equally malicious friend) prefaced all our questions with ‘Phenomenologically speaking…’. This was only after we each, individually, had debated the professor on the basis of human thought and behavior. The prof, a strict Behavioralist, wasn’t having it, though. After first semester grades of A+, we both got Fs the second semester.
January:08:2010 - 21:17
John,
Shows how bad psychologists many “expert” psychologists can be – giving F only for that kind of prank of students – kind of discredits the A+ as well, without doubting your intellectual abilities. Students in my class would have to work really very hard to get either an A+ or an F.
I do feel you would have made an excellent psychologist and helped some depressed people much better than some psychologists are doing! So, Psychology’s loss is international diplomacy’s gain!