At the end of each
year, dictionaries like to highlight significant new words or phrases that have
entered the English language over the previous 12 months.
The Collins
English Dictionary declared “single-use” its word of the year for 2018, a year
when disposable plastic supermarket bags became a symbol of wasteful
consumerism and environmental harm.
Observant readers
will note that “single-use” is actually two words, but then so was “fake news”,
which was Collins’ word of the year for 2017.
The Oxford
Dictionary’s Word of the Year in 2017 was “youthquake”, which was defined as “a
significant cultural, political, or social change arising from the actions or
influence of young people”.
Oxford’s
lexicographers chose it because of the role young voters played in that year’s
British general election, which nearly delivered an upset victory for Jeremy
Corbyn’s Labour Party. Corbyn’s brand of cloth-cap socialism struck a chord
with the impressionable young, who are not old enough to know that socialism
always turns out badly.
Oxford’s choice
for the year just ended was “toxic”, a word that cropped up in a variety of
contexts. We had toxic relationships, toxic cultures, toxic waste, toxic
chemicals and “toxic masculinity” – a feminist label for appalling male
behaviour as perpetrated by the likes of Harvey Weinstein.
It can be seen
from the above examples that the word of the year typically reveals something
about the mood of the times. Others included “Brexit” (Collins, 2016) and
“post-truth” (Oxford, same year).
Which leads me, in
a roundabout way, to my own word of the year – except that, like Collins, I’ve
cheated and gone for a phrase that consists of two words.
My phrase of the
year is “unconscious bias”. This is something you’re guilty of if you’re white
and middle-class, and more so if you’re male, able-bodied and heterosexual.
If you tick those
boxes, you are automatically considered to hold an unconscious bias against
people who are none of those things – in other words women, people of colour,
people who identify as gay, lesbian or trans-gender, and those with
disabilities.
At least this is
what we’re told by people who promote the concept of unconscious bias. And we
just have to accept that they must be right, because the essence of unconscious
bias is that you don’t know you have it.
Most New
Zealanders may think of themselves as fair-minded, tolerant and full of
goodwill toward their fellow human beings, but those who accuse them of
unconscious bias know better. They know that beneath our smug complacency, most
of us seethe with malice and are determined to maintain our status in society
by crushing those less privileged.
The genius of the
phrase “unconscious bias” is that people who are accused of harbouring it can’t
deny it, because by definition they’re unaware of it. They are expected to
stare shame-facedly at the floor and admit they’re guilty even though they
never realised it.
In fact the act of
denying guilt may serve to confirm it. At a seminar on hate speech last year, I
heard one speaker assert that “the heartbeat of racism is denial”. In
other words, if you deny you’re racist, you probably are. In this topsy-turvy,
Kafka-esque world, you’re condemned either way.
While logic
dictates that there probably is such a thing as unconscious bias, I believe its
grip on society is grossly overstated, the aim being to heap guilt and shame on
white middle-class people so that they meekly comply with activists’ demands
for special treatment of supposedly oppressed minority groups.
Of course, unconscious
bias wasn’t the only new term we had to get our heads around in 2018. Another
was the adjective “woke”, which derives from “awake” and came into common usage
as a result of America’s Black Lives Matter movement. If you’re “woke”, you’re
alert to racism and social justice issues.
Meanwhile, in
Britain, the political insult du jour is to call someone a
gammon. An English term for ham, gammon is used to refer to
pale-skinned men on the conservative side of politics who supposedly resemble
pigs.
“Gammon” is
closely related to the phrase “stale, pale and male”, which was also frequently
heard in 2018. All other stereotypes based on sex, age and skin
colour are strictly forbidden, but older white men are the one demographic
group that it’s okay – in fact almost mandatory – to disparage.
But at least this
ideological contradiction throws up the occasional humorous irony, as
exemplified by the impeccably “woke” Auckland columnist who wrote a furious
rant about pale, stale males only months after turning 60 himself.
Either it was an
unconscious expression of self-loathing, or he somehow imagines he’s been
sprinkled with fairy dust which renders him magically exempt from the
label.
Karl du Fresne, a freelance journalist, is the
former editor of the Dominion-Post. He blogs at karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.