Discriminated - Once we disagree… have we?
I am not sure how to start this post really. It could either start with a question or it could start with something that has happened to me in the last few months.
But, perhaps I will start with the question…
The question would be this. If you have two people who are living their lives according to their own conscience, yet they are diametrically opposed and both parties disagree with each others way of life, are they both discriminating against each other?
Let me elaborate further… When disagreement happens between two people does that mean discrimination has occurred in some form against one another’s opinion? And if they both vehemently disagree, is it fair for only one say to say that the other is being discriminating only? Or is it safe and right to say both have discriminated against each other?
PS: I am sick of this word (discriminate) already! But I really would like to hear your answers.
“…. are they both discriminating against each other?”
They’re just disagreeing.
Like you im sick of all these politically correct words and terms being tossed around, this is one of them.
If the two are Christians V, and they are disagreeing on how a scripture should be applied, i still do not see that as discrimination: its called discussion (or even debating in love) and seeking the truth together–or it should be the case for both sides.
Tossing out that term, or any other ones, of the many used today, can be an attempt on the part of one to manipulate or “shame” the other party into submission or to back off.
I agree with PJ MIller who says that the word discrimination is used to shame the other party, in other words bullying the other person. What is wrong with someone saying that they disagree with someone else, and where did honesty to ones face go?
I have a friend who left his family to “find himself” in a relationship with a man. As well as ditching his family when they needed him, he was so self absorbed, the only thing that bothered him was getting other people’s approval and he didn’t get mine! I wasn’t discriminating against him, I didn’t agree with what he did and the choices he made.
The word discrimination is thrown at people to suggest that they are being prejudiced against another, as in stopping/impinging on their rights. The actual meaning of the word is to distinguish - to make a distinction - which could have a positive meaning like calling a spade a spade, rather than pretending.
I prefer to be at an impasse with someone and “agree to disagree” then be forbidden by society taboos or being bullied from saying what I really think.
Very interesting topic V
Are they not simply just differing from eachother according to their beliefs? I think if they are living together, they are obviously agreeing to disagree. Oh, I see that Tanya already said that.
Isn’t being discriminatory like being discerning? Or has our culture made this into a nasty word?
Is this a trick question?
Vee,
I think this is an incredibly important posts, actually. It’s the subtle that is always so elusive to us and needs clear definition. One of the sticky wickets of Postmodernity is its use of language as technique, the recasting words and language to fit an ever-changing viewpoint. Both Orwell and C. S. Lewis wrote about this. I’m running short on time because of studying for a quiz, so I don’t have time to give an example of what I call the “Dissonances”. That should give you a clearer idea of the word play I am talking about. I will have to catch you on the “flip side” .
God bless you,
Melly
Thanks for the responses so far… looking forward to further discussion on this.
My weekend has arrived, so that means no blogging for me.
V
Melly,
I have read all of Lewis’ books (or at least most of them) and I remember something in his book called “Mere Christianity” in which he says…
In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served. [Emphasis in original in Preface pg. 11]
Also in the book “The Abolition of Man” Lewis speaks about language change. He speaks about feelings being projected into words. So, feelings can change the meaning of a word, or redefine how we use a word. As Carla pointed out, has the word discrimination become a dirty word??? For an example…
In their second chapter Gaius and Titius quote the well-known story of Coleridge at the waterfall. You remember that there were two tourists present: that one called it ’sublime’ and the other ‘pretty’; and that Coleridge mentally endorsed the first judgement and rejected the second with disgust. Gaius and Titius comment as follows: ‘When the man said This is sublime, he appeared to be making a remark about the waterfall… Actually … he was not making a remark about the waterfall, but a remark about his own feelings. What he was saying was really I have feelings associated in my mind with the word “Sublime”, or shortly, I have sublime feelings’ Here are a good many deep questions settled in a pretty summary fashion. But the authors are not yet finished. They add: ‘This confusion is continually present in language as we use it. We appear to be saying something very important about something: and actually we are only saying something about our own feelings.’ (The Green Book)
Even on their own view—on any conceivable view—the man who says This is sublime cannot mean I have sublime feelings. Even if it were granted that such qualities as sublimity were simply and solely projected into things from our own emotions, yet the emotions which prompt the projection are the correlatives, and therefore almost the opposites, of the qualities projected. The feelings which make a man call an object sublime are not sublime feelings but feelings of veneration. If This is sublime is to be reduced at all to a statement about the speaker’s feelings, the proper translation would be I have humble feelings. If the view held by Gaius and Titius were consistently applied it would lead to obvious absurdities. It would force them to maintain that You are contemptible means I have contemptible feelings’, in fact that Your feelings are contemptible means My feelings are contemptible. (The Abolition of Man)
Now, I have just scanned my bookcase for this book, and guess what!!! I don’t have the book any more, I must have leant it out to someone and for the life of me I cannot remember who! Ugghhhh!
Blessings
Vee
I think it depends on the stituation whether it is discrimination or not. For example, if I were to have a conversation with a black person, and said, “Black people should only work as slaves”, and the black person (obviously) disagreed with me, I believe that is discrimination, because I would be making that judgement based on skin colour rather than actual merit. However, if it was simply a discussion with a person, and both sides could not agree, that is just a disagreement, not discrimination. It depends a lot on what the conversation was about, and where each person is coming from in that conversation.
Vee,
I enjoyed your quotes very much and they are ones, I am familiar with (having also read some of the Abolition of Man, as well). Interestingly, I just read an essay on this very subject: “To See Through a Glass Darkly: C. S. Lewis, George Orwell, and the Corruption of Language.” by David MIlls. I think it adds to the discussion here by expanding on the increasing reliance on language as a technique by those who are doing it on purpose, for good or for bad. Also, I think a good thing to keep in mind one of Ravi’s quotes that adds further support for the frequent misuse of language in our day and goes to futhuring Lewis’ thoughts in the Abolition of Man: “We hear with our eyes and think with our feelings.” Which supports what Lewis says here: “The feelings which make a man call an object sublime are not sublime feelings but feelings of veneration. If This is sublime is to be reduced at all to a statement about the speaker’s feelings, the proper translation would be I have humble feelings.” If I were to use the somewhat antiquated statement: “She is a woman of discriminating tastes.”, I would be refering not to the woman’s wanting to exclude people from their just and fair treatment in a situation, I would be referring to this woman’s propensity to b selective in what she liked or disliked as to food, clothing, entertainment, reading and such. Much of how we use or misuse language has exactly to do with what Lewis is saying about projection to an original meaning over time and also what Mr. Safire, Mr. E. B. White, and Mr. Muggeridge would, (and did point out) to us as a serious error that writers make when leading us, the general population, to do the same in our everyday speech.
On a somewhat related subject, what political writers do hastens this mis-coinage so that their aims are served. This is what Orwell was concerned with and I beleive is at the heart of our discussion on the misuse of the word “discrimination”. That word has gained such emotional projection attached to it from the political use, it has begun to lose its real power and meaning.
Melly
Much of how we use or misuse language has exactly to do with what Lewis is saying about projection to an original meaning over time and also what Mr. Safire, Mr. E. B. White, and Mr. Muggeridge would, (and did point out) to us as a serious error that writers make when leading us, the general population, to do the same in our everyday speech.
On a somewhat related subject, what political writers do hastens this mis-coinage so that their aims are served. This is what Orwell was concerned with and I beleive is at the heart of our discussion on the misuse of the word “discrimination”. That word has gained such emotional projection attached to it from the political use, it has begun to lose its real power and meaning.
This is what I want to talk about further. The dictionary says this…
1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.
Which is what Sarah was pointing out.
But the dictionary also says this which is a verb used with object…
discriminate
1628, from L. discriminare “to divide,” from discrimen, derived n. from discernere (see discern). The adverse (usually racial) sense is first recorded 1866, Amer.Eng. Positive sense remains in discriminating (adj.) “possessing discernment” (1792).
“It especially annoys me when racists are accused of ‘discrimination.’ The ability to discriminate is a precious facility; by judging all members of one ‘race’ to be the same, the racist precisely shows himself incapable of discrimination.” [Christopher Hitchens]
2. to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.
–verb (used with object)
3. to make or constitute a distinction in or between; differentiate: a mark that discriminates the original from the copy.
4. to note or distinguish as different: He can discriminate minute variations in tone.
–adjective
5. marked by discrimination; making or evidencing nice distinctions: discriminate people; discriminate judgments.
But the word has been used in ways to bully and shame someone, as NWProdigal pointed out and therefore has projected meaning into a word which needn’t be there, and as Tania pointed out the word can be used to label someone as prejudice, when really they are disagreeing on “living right”.
Now, living right can change from one century to another and even from one culture to another; understood as “moral relativism” .
Vee
Yes, as Lewis pointed out that there was already a word for “good” and it needn’t be synonymous with the word “Christian”, so, too, the word “prejudice” stands alone and needn’t be synonymous with the word “discrimination”. Now to it,( and please forgive my forthrightness but the point is pressing), It is either a laziness of expression or an ignorance of expression on the part of the user for either not stating what exactly he or she meant by choosing a more precise word or qualifying what they meant with the proper attribute. And we all do it from time to time.
But words are always changing and evolving - this is one of the things I love about language - and the fact is, the word ‘discriminate’ has evolved to a point where it does mean: “1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.”
You can’t find a word in a dictionary and then decide that you will only agree with certain definitions. To say it is laziness or ignorance is… ignorant.
The fact is if discrimination (or prejudice) occured, it occured whether we want to use that word or not.
Sarah,
Like you, I enjoy language as well. And yes, words do aquire new meanings through usage. That can be both bad and good. How? When it corrupts meaning. It is the intent of the users that then becomes the issue. Are they trying to corrupt the language for an agenda? And is this agenda to manipulate? Or are they doing it for careless experimentation? There are countless examples throughout history where this has been the case. The easiest way to use language to manipulate others is create an esoterica to discriminate against “those on the outside” of the group from being able to “come in” simply because they don’t know the “jargon”. But is that kind of discrimination bad or just a natural outworking of the aquired knowledge of the group? All groups do this to a certain extent. Sometimes it is done out of false pride, sometimes out of necessity, the reasons are many. Madison Avenue does it through advertising campaigns over long periods of time which, when done for hire by certian political groups, seeks.to corrupt language for an insidious purpose. They go all out on every level of society to do this, from children’s books used in schools to other cultural venues in order to shape the culture. It is ignorance, indeed, to ignore their purpose. In literature, Aldous Huxley demonstrated how language could be corrupted by “evolving meanings” gone really bad in “Brave New World”. Orwell said the same in his essay “Politics and the English Language” in which he asserted: “The decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes, but each makes the other worse.” In a personal relationship level, anyone who has dealt with an individual diagnosed with the condition of NPD (malignant narcissism) has had the experience of language being used to “gaslight” someone, to totally obliterate the truth to gain power over that individual through outright slander, half-truths, and innuendos. Language is a most powerful weapon in their hands and in that extreme, it well demonstrates the danger of the tongue and the corruption of language, both spoken and written. The danger is the ability to alter our perception of the truth. So what can we do when there are so many avenues and forces in postmodernity seeking to obliterate meaning in order to gain power over the way we perceive things? My comment was intended to address a defense of clarity. If a word has become corrupted by political or economic usage, then we cannot be lazy in our use of it if we want to be precise and convey truth. We must be careful using a word and not be ignorant of the perceived meaning of it to our audience. With the Internet and blogging to a global audience, this becomes as difficult as making a right hand lane change: there is always the temptation to be lazy or ignorant of that “blind spot” of misinterpretation. Thus, we have to work harder at saying what we mean precisely, as to be clearly understood, to make the best avoidance of offending.
I hope that you will accept my apology if I offended you with my previous shorter reply. My purpose was to make aware that we all are imprecise from time to time and this is something that we cannot afford to do any more and must try hard to overcome to protect what is true and what is not. Words are more than definitions, they have connotations which may or may not be helpful anymore.
To that end, I hope I made the point a bit clearer this time of the dangers of the misuse of language in this age of relativism. The mood behind this thinking IS all about using language as technique in order to render what we know to be truth, what our spiritual forefathers knew to be truth as meaningless. And the first level of doing that is to invoke previously understood meanings of words and change them to convey a change of thinking through emotional manipulation. Even though subtle, it is still a dangerous thing.
God bless you,
Melly
But I am not arguing about whether the evolving of language is right (because I do agree with alot of what you have said about it), I am saying that in this case it has happened. And because it happened, then if someone says that someone else has discriminated against them, then I am sure we all know what that means.
The thing is, this post was asking whether or not discrimination had occured, and everyone has argued semantics of the word itself rather than getting to the crux of whether or not ‘discrimination’ actually occured.
Sarah,
I went back to reread Vee’s original post to re-orient myself to “what started it all”.
The originial post was a semantical question dealing with a rather generic supposition:
>>”The question would be this. If you have two people who are living their lives according to their own conscience, yet they are diametrically opposed and both parties disagree with each others way of life, are they both discriminating against each other?”<<
In other words, we were not dealing with a specific case, say, from the newspaper of two real individuals over a real disagreement or even a scene from a movie which would have given us some actual context to address and apply meaning to in order to say yes, there was discrimination or no, there wasn’t. In a way, this sort of reminds me of the old Monty Python sketch that begins” I’ve come here for an argument.” “No, you haven’t.” “Yes, I have!” And of course this exchange goes on for some time until it is defined that they are not having an argument but merely a disagreement.
And that seems as good as any place to address this point: what Vee stated is a scenario in which many a Christian has found him or herself at key points in history. Even in the present, Christians find themselves in this same place: taking a stand. And that is what Vee is talking about when she says: ” If you have two people who are living their lives according to their own conscience,” Taking a stand is not in any way, shape or form discrimination. It does not exclude anyone from believing what they want to believe. That there will be a disagreement over whatever that stand involves is a given. Taking a stand involves one’s conscience and one’s convictions. Those cannot for any reason be violated or compromised without serious repurcissions to our relationship with God. Now can you take a stand for what is wrong as opposed to what is right? Of course, but God defines that as rebellion, not discrimination. Now let’s look at this question Vee is using as a great illustration, because here is a perfect example of a “strawman” created by the bullying culture of postmodernity and the sly mood of relativism. The argument: ” When disagreement happens between two people does that mean discrimination has occurred in some form against one another’s opinion? And if they both vehemently disagree, is it fair for only one say to say that the other is being discriminating only? Or is it safe and right to say both have discriminated against each other?” This is right out of a culture that has put us in the position of dealing with the “jugglers of meaning” in order to be thought of as “fair” . That is our “worry” here and they know it. This postmodern culture is hitting us with the manipulation of words like “fair” and “unfair” and “discrimination” and redefining them to bully their way into getting us to backdown on a very serious thing: standing for the truth. If I were to close my eyes and look at individuals who use this sort of argument, I would see the children stamping their feet and throwing temper tantrums because mom won’t let them do something “joey’s mom” is letting him do: They call her “unfair”. But if I were to tell you that Joey’s mom has said no, because Joey’s friends were going to pull a drive by shooting just for the thrill of it: “Bye! see you later, Mom.” You’d probably agree, that Joey’s mom wasn’t being “unfair”. What was Joey doing? He was manipulating language by investing emotionalism into the connotation, playing on mom’s fear of being “unfair”. That is what is going on here in the larger context of using the word discrimination as it has crept into our culture. The stake and context of the argument needs to be defined before the road to the word “discrimination” can be realistically and truthfully taken.
I want to thank you for making us be a little more clear about this. I also want to encourage us to be on guard against this sort of thing when the Enemy speaks though the culture this way in order to get you and I to compromise. Because that is really what is at the heart of this.
Melly
Well…. this is where we will have to agree to disagree. I actually do not have a huge issue with postmodernism and actually believe that there is a lot of truth (heh) to the concepts of postmodernism. I actually think that if people could look at and understand the fact that we all find different meaning in words, language and even christianity, there would be less disagreeing and fighting. Nobody can see or understand something in the exact same way that I do, because they have’t had the same experiences that I have. It makes sense. I have never heard of postmodernism being described as ‘bullying’ before.
Definitely an interesting conversation though!
Sarah,
Thank you for your gracious attitude and your gentle reply. This was a difficult point to come to grips with. We do agree that it would be a far more wonderful thing to be able to agree, to be at peace with one another. But until God and His angels finish the “sorting work” between the goats and the sheep, that won’t be possible in this world. (Matt. 25:31) It is possible in the Church and that is one area we are commanded to “…speak in agreement” and be “fitly united” (1 Cor. 1: 1-31) and what a wonderful peace that is when we do! As brothers and sisters in Christ, we have a common creed and the Cross from which to do that so that we can bring all of our experiences, the private personal and as a group, and find reconciliation. This is the promise of our Lord if we submit to that yoke with Him (Matt. 11: 28-30). And we also have the promise that God is going to help us reach this agreement before the end comes. We will be a “bride adorned for her husband” without spot. (Revelation) But individually, like Job, who realizes at the end of his trials “Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know.” (and I know from my own personal painful experiences and trials), we will be helped to realize by the Holy Spirit that somewhere along the line, all of those things we go through that seem different from everyone else’s experiences are not really so much different after all. Pain is pain and hurts coelesce into compassion at some point for the loving heart taught by them. That is what the Cross can do for us if we all keep looking at it rather than what has happend to us. Then when we see the Lord above all that we have been through, then we see through the counterfeit philosophies offered by the culture, then we have the freedom we have been looking for and the agreement and peace we have been longing for without having to compromise for it. We are given a strength from beyond to know when to fight for the inheritance of truth that we have been given (2 Cor. 2:4) against any stronghold of spiritual opposition. It is as Chesterton said: “Before any cosmic act of reform, we must have a cosmic oath of allegiance….the heart must be fixed on the right thing: the moment we have a fixed heart, we have a free hand” In this case, it is an allegiance not to peace and agreement for its own sake, but for the sake of the Christ. It is the way the peace is made on which all hangs. Until all of us agree to do that, there will disagreements, there will be divisions. That is the choice the Lord puts before us all under the confusion the Enemy is allowed to test us with. Will our love for God be strong enough and pass the test? It will if we keep looking beyond ourselves what happens to us and look up.
God Bless you and you will be in my prayers, my sister in Christ,
Melly
What? I am not sure what you are getting at here… are you praying for me because I don’t have a problem with postmodernism? Postmodernism is a historical period, not ‘believing’ in it is like not believing in the impressionists. I am really confused by your last post.
I will be praying for you to have your faith strengthend since all of us need that. I will be praying for you to clearly hear our Master’s voice, since as sheep we all need that. It is difficult for all of us to keep our focus in these confusing times.
May I speak plainly? I’ll try to be as gentle as possible but please hear me: Postmodernism is a designation for a time period that encompasses a mood and a philosophy that is at its heart opposed to the invitation of the Cross. Sometimes that oppostion is subtle, sometimes it is direct. It encompases practices that God does not approve of nor will he ignore. It engenders confusion on the part of those who espouse that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Jesus said of himself, I am the way and the life and the truth. There is no relativism in Himself. He never offered anything in the nature of an amalgamation of ideas that changed daily with personal experience. May I suggest that here is something that might help better than I can in clearing up the confusion of why a choice must be made between what the world offers in solutions to our problems (postmodernity) as opposed to the way of Christ:
Part 1: http://www.rzim.org/radio/archives.php?p=JT&v=detail&id=1287
Part 2: http://www.rzim.org/radio/archives.php?p=JT&v=detail&id=1288
Part 3: http://www.rzim.org/radio/archives.php?p=JT&v=detail&id=1289
Part 4: http://www.rzim.org/radio/archives.php?p=JT&v=current&id=1290
There are plenty of other sources (besides this web site) where the problems of postmodernity are exposed. You probably have already kept up on these things so I may be repeating information you already know about, if that is so, then I apologize.
May I ask you this? Do you believe that Jesus was telling the truth when he ackowledged that there was such a creature as Satan? And do you believe what Jesus said of Satan, that “that one was a manslayer from the beginning?” And “that he is the Father of the lie”? If so, then we can discuss how and why the philosophies of the world are under his control and do not originate with our heavenly Father, They carry bits and pieces of half truths and what “sounds good” but are deceptions. They are not original but the same trick used on Eve in the Garden of Eden. What was passled out then was the offer of exclusive knowledge that would make us equal to God and deciding for ourselves what was good and bad. And these philosophies marked by period designations do the same thing. I hope that is less confusing.
God bless you,
Melly