![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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
Date: 7/3/09 06:46 pm (UTC)From: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
Date: 7/3/09 07:24 pm (UTC)From: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
Date: 7/3/09 07:33 pm (UTC)From: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
Date: 7/3/09 07:42 pm (UTC)From: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
Date: 7/3/09 07:53 pm (UTC)From: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
Date: 7/3/09 08:06 pm (UTC)From: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...