I harp from time to time on the first and crucial importance of linguistic tradition, as the indispensable foundation of almost all others. We cannot very well maintain a social order if in discussing it we have no way to be each and all clear on what it is, exactly, we are talking about.
This is no original thought. Confucius was saying the same thing 2500 years ago. And Orwell saw clearly that deforming the language would deform – and ruin – culture.
The Leftist Establishment is hard at the ruin of language, with the recent risible emphasis on pronoun protocol.
The James Martin Center has published Part I of my two-part article, Leaving the Blight of Higher Education. This first installment bears the subtitle, “Farewell, Students.” In it I describe and discuss the corruption, not of faculties and administrations (that comes in Part II), but of the student bodies of our colleges and universities. Students have, in effect, been co-opted as the enforcement-arm of the administration in order to police and neutralize even the smallest dissent from the totalitarian program of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity. In its ugly candor, the university now functions as the training-ground for a national regime of denunciation. Far too many students, most of whom, through disinclination and a lack of intellectual requisites, should not be in college, relish their license to denounce and exercise it with enthusiasm. Affirmative action exacerbates this attitude, consisting, as it does, in the inculcation of a sense of racial-moral superiority that can find no anchor in reality but only in perpetual outrage.
It is not simply the politicization of everything. Students have assimilated almost entirely to the vulgarity of the reigning, perverse “pop culture.” To be “cool” requires the insertion of profanity in all sentences. The constant flow of sailor-language is demoralizing for someone who believes that college is supposed to comport itself with civilization.
Here is an excerpt from Part I:
A friend of mine from Upstate, “Fred,” served in the Army, where he rose to the rank of sergeant. After leaving the military, Fred found employment on campus as a manager of services. Fred and I frequently find ourselves in the same bar on weekends.
One afternoon, a gaggle of co-eds having entered the premises, Fred turned to me and asked, “Have you ever overheard them talking on campus?” I nodded, but let him continue.
“They use the f-word in every sentence,” he said, a phenomenon familiar to me. Fred, who came to Upstate from an environment where the f-word possesses a degree of functionality, nevertheless took offense in the profanity of female undergraduate banter.
Fred’s speech maintains a civilized quality and in this, he differentiates himself from students, female or male. It is not that co-eds implicate themselves exclusively in voluble profanity. Male undergraduates indulge equally in expletives. They even invoke the f-word and the s-word in class, but a stern glance can enjoin such infractions.
The problem is a continuing one, however, and its implication remains unsettling. In other classrooms—this is the only possible inference—these language-proletarians have escaped admonition. They, therefore, assume that no one could possibly object to their verbal infelicities.
The Wuhan Virus pandemic, having shut down the campuses and sent the undergraduate cohorts into a wide diaspora, teaches a lesson about multiculturalism and diversity. Dissenters from the reigning New Puritanism think of multiculturalism and diversity as abstract and arbitrary schemes for a total and malicious re-ordering of society. They are right, but it is possible to go further. Multiculturalism, the doctrine, and diversity, the implementation, root themselves in a grossly corporeal way in the compulsory physical crowding of human masses – which is why colleges and universities, with their large numbers of student-residents, furnish the primary ground for the radical re-ordering project. It is not a wrought thronging-together of individuals, but a wrought thronging-together of groups with the aim, among others, of abolishing individuality by preventing its formation. This marshaling of the multitudes, once they are present, commences with the division of them into groups – or to be precise, into one heterogeneous group with numerous sub-groups and another group conceived of, falsely and invidiously, as entirely homogeneous. The division bases itself mainly on skin-color but also on traits like homosexuality, which the “woke” claim as ontological but interpret morally. The supervisors of the project regard the heterogeneous group as embodying the “good” side of their Manichaean morality and the homogeneous group the “evil” side of the same. Thus does embodiment in its dumbness advance to the fore. Multiculturalism and diversity exhibit no interest in the spiritual character of the individual person; in fact, multiculturalism and diversity exhibit fierce hostility to the individual person, considered as spirit. Rather, multiculturalism and diversity emphasize the body, its biological traits, and quantities of bodies. The institution recruits bodies to serve its ends – and its ends justify its means. When events have dispersed thebodies from their vulgar concentration, however, the diversitarians pull at their marionette strings in vain.