![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Semantics
So I'm having a Twitter debate over the use of the word "selfish". One of my pet peeves is people who take a word, change the definition, then insist they're using it correctly because they reassigned it.
I recognize that English is a "living language", but when a word is in current use with an accepted definition, changing the definition just because you want to when other words exist to explain what you're trying to say causes confusion.
nympsam seeks to "reclaim" the word "selfish" to mean doing anything that's good for yourself. However, the definition in the dictionaries all clearly state that selfish is "to the detriment of others" or "without regard to others". I think it's pretty clear that this word is distinct from self-interest or other words designed to indicate simply "doing for oneself". Just by coincidence, Dan Savage does the same thing in the article I posted about earlier today.
The problem with "reclaiming" this word, is that it no longer separates between altruism and atrocities. It has been argued by many people that "altruism" is inherently selfish because, ultimately, you're getting something out of doing a good deed. While it is true that a person "gets something out of" the altruistic act, the fact is that an altruistic act is specifically WITH regard for others, therefore is the exact opposite of "selfish".
There are people who are, indeed, selfish. These are people who cheat on their spouses because they feel entitled to sexual relations WITHOUT REGARD to the promise they made to someone and WITHOUT REGARD to how that person feels about their actions or how their actions affect that other person. These are people who are at the far end of the Free Agent side of the spectrum, who behave as though they are single WITHOUT REGARD to their partners. These are the people who say "look, I told you I was poly, so you shouldn't have a problem with me having unprotected sex with 500 people this year and not telling you about it". These are people who lie, cheat, steal, and otherwise harm others because they value the pleasure they get out of the act above the harm it causes other people.
Telling your partner your needs in a relationship does not fall under this category. It could be labeled "self-interest", but the very act of doing so "respectfully" negates the use of the word "selfish".
The polyamory mantra "communicate communicate communicate" requires good communication skills. Taking an existing word and changing the definition does not foster good communication. It muddies the water even further. The word "selfish" has a range to it as it is, and the edges of the spectrum of behaviour that could be considered "selfish" are fuzzy at best. Changing the definition of the word to include behaviours that were previously antonyms of the word makes the word inherently meaningless.
There are many times when inventing new words is necessary. The word "polyamory" is a great example. There are even times when "reclaiming" a word is important. A social movement to remove the stigma from a label of a group of people to try and fight for social equality and civil rights is an example. But just picking a word and saying "eh, nope, I don't like what this means, so I say it means the exact opposite even though there are other words that mean what I'm trying to say" is not a good example of when one should affect a language change.
It would be like me saying that I wanted to reclaim the word "steal" to mean "taking something" and leaving out the part about "without permission". So, every time I go to the store, I will "respectfully steal" bread. Socially, people can be heard to say "I'm going to steal one of your french fries, ok?" when what they really mean is that they are asking permission to have a french fry, or they are taking a french fry from someone that they have good reason to believe will give permission. So, much like the word "selfish", the term "steal" is broadened incorrectly in social slang.
The problem here is that "stealing" is against the law, because it has a very specific definition, incorrect common usage aside. I can be punished for stealing. If "stealing" no longer includes "without permission", then we have effectively rendered the term meaningless because now there is nothing to separate taking a french fry from grand theft auto. Those are two very different concepts that should have different words.
The word "selfish" also has a very specific definition, in spite of the fact that is is often used incorrectly. Within polyamory, we encourage communication, and advanced communication skills make for better poly relationships. Changing the definition of an already-existing word to mean the opposite of what it actually means does NOT foster good communication.
However, nympsam even specifically says "I dont believe that going by dictionary and societal definitions are reason enough to not reclaim a word for good." So even if social slang lined up with the dictionary definition, her position is that it is still valid to use a word in the context of the opposite of its meaning.
Technically, she has the *ability* to use words incorrectly, and she even has the *right* to use words incorrectly (it's not against the law, because if it were, the Traditional Marriage people would all be serving life-sentences), but that doesn't mean she's *right*. It's still an incorrect usage of the word and insisting on doing so makes communication more difficult.
Even if nympsam does manage to change the use of the word within the poly community, the majority of English-speakers will still be using the word differently and it does not help us at all to be using mainstream words with poly-specific definitions. That is the antithesis of "good communication".
In a relationship style that espouses "communication communication communication", we should be striving for the most clear, most efficient use of language. And saying that "red" means "yellow" because I want it to is not the most clear or most efficient use of language and will not help me to communicate my thoughts.
I recognize that English is a "living language", but when a word is in current use with an accepted definition, changing the definition just because you want to when other words exist to explain what you're trying to say causes confusion.
nympsam seeks to "reclaim" the word "selfish" to mean doing anything that's good for yourself. However, the definition in the dictionaries all clearly state that selfish is "to the detriment of others" or "without regard to others". I think it's pretty clear that this word is distinct from self-interest or other words designed to indicate simply "doing for oneself". Just by coincidence, Dan Savage does the same thing in the article I posted about earlier today.
The problem with "reclaiming" this word, is that it no longer separates between altruism and atrocities. It has been argued by many people that "altruism" is inherently selfish because, ultimately, you're getting something out of doing a good deed. While it is true that a person "gets something out of" the altruistic act, the fact is that an altruistic act is specifically WITH regard for others, therefore is the exact opposite of "selfish".
There are people who are, indeed, selfish. These are people who cheat on their spouses because they feel entitled to sexual relations WITHOUT REGARD to the promise they made to someone and WITHOUT REGARD to how that person feels about their actions or how their actions affect that other person. These are people who are at the far end of the Free Agent side of the spectrum, who behave as though they are single WITHOUT REGARD to their partners. These are the people who say "look, I told you I was poly, so you shouldn't have a problem with me having unprotected sex with 500 people this year and not telling you about it". These are people who lie, cheat, steal, and otherwise harm others because they value the pleasure they get out of the act above the harm it causes other people.
Telling your partner your needs in a relationship does not fall under this category. It could be labeled "self-interest", but the very act of doing so "respectfully" negates the use of the word "selfish".
The polyamory mantra "communicate communicate communicate" requires good communication skills. Taking an existing word and changing the definition does not foster good communication. It muddies the water even further. The word "selfish" has a range to it as it is, and the edges of the spectrum of behaviour that could be considered "selfish" are fuzzy at best. Changing the definition of the word to include behaviours that were previously antonyms of the word makes the word inherently meaningless.
There are many times when inventing new words is necessary. The word "polyamory" is a great example. There are even times when "reclaiming" a word is important. A social movement to remove the stigma from a label of a group of people to try and fight for social equality and civil rights is an example. But just picking a word and saying "eh, nope, I don't like what this means, so I say it means the exact opposite even though there are other words that mean what I'm trying to say" is not a good example of when one should affect a language change.
It would be like me saying that I wanted to reclaim the word "steal" to mean "taking something" and leaving out the part about "without permission". So, every time I go to the store, I will "respectfully steal" bread. Socially, people can be heard to say "I'm going to steal one of your french fries, ok?" when what they really mean is that they are asking permission to have a french fry, or they are taking a french fry from someone that they have good reason to believe will give permission. So, much like the word "selfish", the term "steal" is broadened incorrectly in social slang.
The problem here is that "stealing" is against the law, because it has a very specific definition, incorrect common usage aside. I can be punished for stealing. If "stealing" no longer includes "without permission", then we have effectively rendered the term meaningless because now there is nothing to separate taking a french fry from grand theft auto. Those are two very different concepts that should have different words.
The word "selfish" also has a very specific definition, in spite of the fact that is is often used incorrectly. Within polyamory, we encourage communication, and advanced communication skills make for better poly relationships. Changing the definition of an already-existing word to mean the opposite of what it actually means does NOT foster good communication.
However, nympsam even specifically says "I dont believe that going by dictionary and societal definitions are reason enough to not reclaim a word for good." So even if social slang lined up with the dictionary definition, her position is that it is still valid to use a word in the context of the opposite of its meaning.
Technically, she has the *ability* to use words incorrectly, and she even has the *right* to use words incorrectly (it's not against the law, because if it were, the Traditional Marriage people would all be serving life-sentences), but that doesn't mean she's *right*. It's still an incorrect usage of the word and insisting on doing so makes communication more difficult.
Even if nympsam does manage to change the use of the word within the poly community, the majority of English-speakers will still be using the word differently and it does not help us at all to be using mainstream words with poly-specific definitions. That is the antithesis of "good communication".
In a relationship style that espouses "communication communication communication", we should be striving for the most clear, most efficient use of language. And saying that "red" means "yellow" because I want it to is not the most clear or most efficient use of language and will not help me to communicate my thoughts.
no subject
It is the definition of "selfish" I grew up with and thus is part of my native tongue, but I have somewhat learned to adapt to the wider world's usage.
I believe the blurring of distinctions may actually be somewhat deliberate, although most people would never admit it.
"sacrifice" also has a special meaning in those circles, which is "the sacrifice of a greater value for a lesser value" ergo by definition all sacrifice is stupid. However, giving up your life so someone else you live can be "selfish" and reasonable.
There is an upside to this worldview, which is that it can make you mindful of your choices and less prone to complaining about things like the time and energy your kids require from you, since you're being selfish to give it to them and you're not sacrificing anything. But it makes it really difficult to communicate with normal people.
no subject
But communicating with the greater population, and communicating with partners who come from the greater population causes more difficulty than necessary when "reclaiming" words. There are enough difficulties with communication as it is without redefining pre-existing words.
I, actually, grew up with this abbreviated definition of "selfish" too, and it has caused all kinds of difficulties in communicating with partners when I labeled myself as "selfish" and argued that being "selfish" was not a bad thing when what I was *trying* to say was that I intend to take care of my own needs and that our relationship would benefit if we were each responsible for getting our own needs met, particularly if we were assisting each other in this effort.
no subject
So, anyhow, this child when learning to speak accidentally got the idea that "mine" specifically meant hers regardless of who used the word. So, if she said "this is mine" she meant what you expect. But if you said "this is mine" she thought you were telling her it was hers. The parent decided not to correct this error and to see how long it took to self-correct.
The answer: first day of kindergarten.
She got into a fight with another child and was corrected.
Yeah, it's tough growing up with less common usages. But it is helpful if people speak the same language.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I prefer to avoid talking about whether something is or is not selfish altogether and get to what, in my experience at least, is the underlying issue at stake when the word starts getting tossed around...what am I likely to do when my desires and my sweetie's conflict in a way that can't be reconciled?
In context, I say something to the effect of "I will continue to prioritize my own needs before those of potential new sweetie and our relationship." I am, after all, the only thing I will ever actually have. This doesn't mean I'll be unnecessarily cruel or hurtful and it certainly doesn't mean I'll ever break safety agreements, but it honors from the beginning that people and their needs often change over time.
I can't rule out the possibility that some day, something will happen or some opportunity will come up that I'll love and my hypothetical GF will hate. If that happens, I have to go with my own needs; it's not as if sacrificing them to please her is going to make this a _good_ relationship, after all. And yeah, it hurts (hey, I was the one left behind when K and L had all their big changes. Hurts is an understatement. But folks change and it is what it is).
I don't think that this is selfish behavior, but it is an area where some people have philosophical divides (This is how my quad ended up a triad, and a lot of how the triad finally found its end). I remember having endless conversations with Josh about "selfishness" and what it meant, and was equally frustrated with the whole semantic argument then, too. We don't need to redefine the word. We DO need to understand how our partners look at their relationships and communicate, because sometimes there are big differences in opinion lurking in those waters.
no subject
Language is a code we share. Sharing only works well if we all use the same code. Of course new code comes in, of course some code is repurposed. But mostly, the whole stays fairly stable over a few generations. Arbitrary changes are just confusing. Ayn Rand has come up several times in my online reading lately. I didn't particularly remember her skewing of "selfish" but that makes sense, historically. It doesn't make sense to take her use of the word out of context, and expect others to "get it."
no subject
That's one of the very few areas of my life where I'd describe myself as conservative.
*From "Through the Looking-Glass":
"There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
no subject
no subject
It wasn't that long ago, that I shared my perspective on "selfishness" with someone else, and it was pointed out to me that I had rendered the word completely null. If all things are "selfish," the word has ceased to have any useful meaning. If "selfishness" encompasses all things, it doesn't mean anything at all.
That doesn't really stop people from using it in all sorts of inappropriate situations, however. I agree with the poster above about this new usage being related to libertarianism and objectivism. I believe there is actually an intentional blurring there. If rescuing a kitten, and telling a homeless man to go fuck himself are both "selfish" then I no longer have the language I need to differentiate between a social act and an anti-social act, and am relieved from my sense of responsibility and guilt.
No, you are 100% right. There is a correct way to use the word "selfish" and an incorrect way. And more than that, redefining it in this way is damaging to society imo.
no subject
I'm actually one of those that actively try to reclaim the word. Here's why:
The key distinction that needs expressing is: how important the well being of others is to your own. The importance of OTHERS' interests to you is what matters, not your OWN interest.
And the problem with the word "selfish" is, that it gives the completely opposite impression. The word has the root "self" coupled with a strong negative connotation. It is, inevitably, the source of a very widespread confusion -- that the "self" is the very thing that makes the word bad.
These two words, "selfish" and "selfless", are absolutely awful words, because they couple particular meanings with a totally incompatible lexeme -- "self", which helps perpetrate the erroneous notion that behaving in your own self interest is bad, and abandoning your own self interest is good. I'm not just making this up -- it is, indeed, a very VERY common mistake that people make, and it causes a lot of harm. You see that the negative connotation of "selfish" is beginning to creep into other expressions, such as "self motivated" or "behaving in own self-interest". Somehow, people just imply that this is done to the detriment of others, without saying it... Some things are just so important that they should be said explicitly!
You say that changing the word's definition would make it meaningless. I agree! Absolutely. That's the point, though! I believe that it would be best if the words "selfish" and "selfless" were RETIRED FROM USE.
You are right, of course, that the distinction between self interest that gives importance to well being of others and the self interest that disregards that well being is very important -- but we need a different pair of words for it, because "selfless" and "selfish" are simply too dangerously misleading.
So, no -- I'm not advocating to change the definition of words "just because". I think that in this case there is an extremely good reason for it. (And btw., it started with Ayn Rand for me, too).
It would be best if both words had the very thing that makes them good and bad -- the value of others' well being -- as their root. Unfortunately, I don't have many suggestions... How about using "inconsiderate" instead of "selfish"? Do you agree that it would greatly reduce the confusion that surrounds the word?
no subject
If you want to retire the word entirely, reclaiming it is not the way to go about it. But the word selfish is not just about the value of others' well-being, it is specifically about one's own well-being.
The point that I'm making is that behaving in one's own self interest is NOT inherently bad, but the word "selfish" fundamentally excludes all acts of self-interest that are not done "without regard to others".
I'm not a fan of Ann Rand at all, I think she's pompous and full of shit.
no subject
The first dictionary I looked into (wiktionary.com) disagrees with that.
Selfish:
1. Holding one’s self-interest as the standard for decision making.
2. Having regard for oneself above others’ well-being.
Right, 2 is better than 1, but still bad, imho. It implies that the ethical norm is to regard the well being of others as having, by default, the same weight (or higher) than one's own. I'm disgusted by this notion -- mostly because it views my well being as something independent of the well being of others, so that I can "weigh" the two against each other and decide which one is "heavier". In reality, my well being includes the well being of others as one of the criteria. The second reason I don't like 2 is that it is phrased like it is supposed to hold for all others, indiscriminantly. Which is just wrong, imho. But many people understand it exactly that way.
But the word selfish is not just about the value of others' well-being, it is specifically about one's own well-being.
But why should it be? (OK, now I'm starting to sound like a broken record...)
no subject
The word is intended to be a word to describe being all about oneself. That's the point. If you want a word to be about other people, then use another word that's about other people.
There *needs* to be words to describe concepts regarding the self.
Mirriam-Webster says:
Main Entry:
self·ish
Pronunciation:
\ˈsel-fish\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1640
1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others
3: being an actively replicating repetitive sequence of nucleic acid that serves no known function ; also : being genetic material solely concerned with its own replication
More dictionaries (and in particular, more dictionaries with editors and long histories of being the standard for language) use definitions along these lines.
The point of the word is to define acts concerning oneself without considering the impact that act has on other people. This is a concept that exists and we therefore need a word to describe it.
no subject
But that was one of my points: wiktionary represents how ordinary volunteers from the Internet (not linguists) understand the word -- and indeed, their understanding is skewed.
I suspect that an ethical disagreement might hide somewhere here -- let me try to check it. What, in your opinion, is more ethically wrong:
1) To steal someone's brand new laptop and sell it on eBay, or
2) To steal someone's brand new laptop and destroy it?
no subject
Ethical dilemmas are a totally different topic, but I don't see much difference between the two options presented. However, a typical pattern is to present two choices, then after someone makes a choice, to alter the parameters by adding more data that could change the answer.
While ethical dilemmas are interesting, it is beyond the scope of this debate. The point is that there is a correct definition of the word "selfish" but people are using it incorrectly. So I am attempting to correct them. Selfish means being concerned with oneself without regard to other people and should be used in that manner.
no subject
If you believe that harming others to one's own benefit is somehow worse, ethically, than harming them "selflessly" -- then you're right, this is one reason to couple the two things in one word. According to my ethics, the opposite is true...