Searching for a word
March 23, 2018 1:44 PM   Subscribe

What's the term for that thing where a group takes a word with a broadly accepted meaning, changes that meaning to something that suits their political aims, then argues (disingenuously, I think) as if the group's re-definition of the word was generally consensual?
posted by heyho to Writing & Language (16 answers total) 6 users marked this as a favorite
 
Co-opting?
posted by mudpuppie at 1:46 PM on March 23, 2018 [23 favorites]


That sounds like the actual definition of "begging the question."
posted by DrAstroZoom at 1:54 PM on March 23, 2018


Sort of a straw-man argument
posted by Query at 1:58 PM on March 23, 2018 [1 favorite]


That's close to a motte and bailey fallacy
posted by Dmenet at 2:03 PM on March 23, 2018 [3 favorites]


Misappropriation to go with the good one (reappropriation)? Or Co-opt.
posted by cmm at 2:08 PM on March 23, 2018 [4 favorites]


Fallacy of definition.
Specifically: Redefinition.
Or redefining terms.
posted by Lunaloon at 2:26 PM on March 23, 2018 [1 favorite]


Appropriation?
posted by maryr at 3:10 PM on March 23, 2018 [3 favorites]


Definitely co-opting.
posted by General Malaise at 3:24 PM on March 23, 2018 [2 favorites]


Sometimes I will co-opt, redefine and reappropriate “false flag” for the meaning you describe, because it’s so much fun.
YMMV
posted by SaltySalticid at 4:48 PM on March 23, 2018


Sometimes I'd call it "a proper evolution of language", and this can be a good thing.

I mean the term "racism" used to essentially be defined as "being unkind to someone because of their race", or "holding a belief that one race is better than another".

These days, many people who use the term "racism" now intend to convey an idea more like, "the application of race-based prejudice in a direction that aligns with systemic injustice".

This definition is new to some people, and perhaps to them it feels disingenuous, but it makes conversations about race much more nuanced and relevant.
posted by pseudostrabismus at 5:34 PM on March 23, 2018 [3 favorites]


Branding. also, tactics. also, identity creation ('we aren't anything until there's a word for it,' however the line goes.) Thoughtfully repurposing an existing word is usually easier than inventing a new one and forcing it into circulation (see the case of "they" vs. various invented neutral pronouns.) though in that particular case, the insistence that it always has meant what it's now used to mean is in fact accurate.

it's a neutral act whose value depends entirely on the worth of the cause it's done in service of. to define it as a bad act without regard to context is to repeat almost verbatim the complaint that cantankerous old conservatives used to recite about the redefinition of the word "gay." the idea that the old meaning of the word had been stolen away and the new one imposed without their consent, even though nothing but fear of being giggled at prevented them from using the word the same old way they always had. words can bear the weight of multiple meanings.

this kind of language change is most successful when there's a mass shift in usage in concert with a deliberate small-group effort to steer it. but it can begin with just the latter, like you describe, and still be successful. people are very attached to the idea that legitimacy in language requires spontaneity and mysterious organic changes originating from the masses, but there's nothing unreal or illegitimate about fucking with definitions on purpose. it just doesn't work unless lots of people embrace a side's marketing campaign and they don't always; they don't have to.

the part of it you call disingenuous is the part of it I think of as tactical, but it can be both. If it involves straight-up lying about what things have 'always' meant, I'd call it Orwellian or just plain lying. but for less extreme cases, words that have inherently negative connotations aren't quite right because this practice is only bad when used for bad purposes, not in itself.
posted by queenofbithynia at 5:47 PM on March 23, 2018 [2 favorites]


Relevant to queen’s good comments above: the etymological fallacy.
posted by SaltySalticid at 7:19 PM on March 23, 2018


"Unspeak" is a book from the mid-2000s that attempted to trace instances of what you describe. From the publisher's blurb:

What do the phrases “pro-life,” “intelligent design,” and “the war on terror” have in common? Each of them is a name for something that smuggles in a highly charged political opinion. Words and phrases that function in this special way go by many names. Some writers call them “evaluative-descriptive terms.” Others talk of “terministic screens” or discuss the way debates are “framed.” Author Steven Poole calls them Unspeak. Unspeak represents an attempt by politicians, interest groups, and business corporations to say something without saying it, without getting into an argument and so having to justify itself. At the same time, it tries to unspeak — in the sense of erasing or silencing — any possible opposing point of view by laying a claim right at the start to only one way of looking at a problem.

It focuses a lot on the Bush / Blair years, but I think it's still highly relevant today.
posted by Calvin and the Duplicators at 7:30 PM on March 23, 2018 [1 favorite]


Doublespeak "is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words".
posted by Homer42 at 8:28 PM on March 23, 2018 [1 favorite]


In '1984' by George Orwell, the government: created the controlled language of Newspeak to ensure universal orthodoxy of ideology and politics among the populace.

Re-defining words while pretending the new meaning was generally consensual meets the objectives of Newspeak.
posted by Homer42 at 8:35 PM on March 23, 2018 [1 favorite]


For me, "hijacking" is closer to what you are searching for than "co-opting". As an example, I would say that Trump has hijacked the term "fake news" to de-legitimize negative but truthful reporting about him.
posted by rada at 9:37 PM on March 23, 2018 [6 favorites]


« Older Search for appropriate Clean and Sober Jewelry -...   |   Short-term child care for older children Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.