Q&A: Loaded Descriptions
Loaded Descriptions
Question
Hi,
I asked you about the expression “bloodsuckers” in the context of the Haredim (I assume you didn’t see it).
Since then I’ve thought a bit more about my question, and it occurred to me that there is in any case a basic philosophical issue here. To illustrate it, I’ll again refer to that expression with regard to the Haredim, but the issue is broader.
When you write that the Haredim are “bloodsuckers,” you’re not interested only in describing them, that is, making a factual claim. If you were content with a factual claim, you would say that they are exploiters, and maybe even parasites (as stated, in my opinion that is actually quite an accurate description, but that’s not what I’m asking about).
What I think is happening in the expression “bloodsuckers” is that the person using it is trying to take a description and load onto it, in addition to the factual description, also value judgments and emotional charge. You basically want to humiliate those people, or at least their behavior. But I think that such humiliation is not justified (even though it may perhaps have some practical benefit—depending on who the speaker is). I’m not claiming that humiliation is never justified, only in this case.
What is actually wrong with a more cool-headed criticism? Other than the fact that it’s less fun, of course…
Answer
Obviously that is the point. But people would say the same thing even about an expression like “parasites.” These expressions describe bad behavior, and that is why I wrote that the problem is not the expressions but the behavior. And even if “bloodsuckers” is cruder, and even if it is not proper to use it (in my opinion there is no problem with it), still one cannot expect someone who uses it to apologize. Certainly not when the demand comes from the bloodsuckers themselves. That is already the height of cynicism: we are allowed to suck blood, but you must not interfere with our bloodsucking and must not condemn us.
Discussion on Answer
I wrote what my problem is with the expression (and I admit that I asked myself whether I might be being self-righteous about it…). The expression dehumanizes human beings. Human beings are not really lice or ticks (or vampires), and when someone compares them to those creatures, he is basically marking them as possessing a fixed, inherent inferiority.
But I definitely admit that it’s hard to be definitive about this, and it depends a lot on the personality of the speaker and his style.
Here are a few examples of loaded expressions directed at human beings that perhaps you too would object to (even if you think they are true):
“stinking black”
“dog”
“little Jew.”
My apologies to sensitive readers…
The question is not whether it hurts, but whether his actions justify hurting him. In our case, the hurt is created by the fact that the expression describes conduct that is morally problematic—but it really does exist.
These kinds of statements, besides being ugly, put the offended public on the defensive and reduce the possibility of changing anything there. Even people who in their heart of hearts know that something needs to change, and who therefore would have gone along with the changes, will now close ranks and treat every idea as “antisemitism.”
In short, lack of substance on one side drags lack of substance on the other side.
Let them get defensive. There have already been excuses for dragging their feet for decades—each time a different pretext. No one is trying to persuade the supposedly offended public of anything, but rather to formulate a position on how to act in the face of the ongoing vile behavior of the supposedly offended public.
Someone who uses this expression does indeed want to condemn and humiliate them. Isn’t that exactly what should be done to bloodsuckers?