Language and Bewitchment (Part Two)

Wokism, Education and the Law

I wonder what George would have thought of it all?

Wokism, Education and the Law

Last week I provided an examination of the meaning of words and I concluded that meaning is related to context: that there is no essential meaning of words or concepts. I don’t think there’s anything controversial about that. The fact that words can mean something different to different people does not create any major problems, generally speaking. But when words are employed within the legal system, meaning can matter a great deal. The difference in the meanings of ‘girl’ and ‘woman’, for example, will have much greater significance in a criminal prosecution of someone accused of having under age sex with a minor, than it will for our valleys women planning a night out.

In the past, cases where the use of language is contested or thought to be injudicious would have been dealt with under civil law through accusations of slander or libel. But in some parts of our modern world, the use of some words or concepts can result in criminal prosecutions. Therefore, the meanings of these now assumes a much greater importance and significance than they have had hitherto. Concepts such as ‘racism’, or ‘misogyny’ or ‘homophobia’ are not just the playthings of academics studying sociology; they have significance in legal matters that could involve ‘linguistic transgressors’ facing fines or imprisonment.

So the legal, as opposed to the dictionary, definitions of such concepts has the potential to impact on our lives a great deal. If we utter a word considered to be racist, sexist or homophobic, even if this is on social media, rather than in person, we could face prosecution under some present or future legislation. In such cases, the philosophical arguments we are examining here will have more than mere academic significance.

Hate speech laws¹¹ have been appearing in many Western countries for decades. Most recently the Scottish Parliament passed The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. This legislation states (e.g. Section 3 a (I) – Racially Aggravated Harassment) that an offence is committed under this Act only when the words or comments made are intended to cause offence. But, as with all legislation, there are many ambiguities among the legal passages it contains. Within this Act, conduct which amounts to harassment of another person can include speech and section 3.5 (on racial harassment) states that ‘harassment of a person includes causing the person alarm or distress’. Already there is an ambiguity here because 3.5 does not state that such harassment must be intentional – only that alarm or distress is caused. This can happen whether there is intention or not. The question as to whether it is reasonable for the injured party to take offence is not addressed.

The section should have read ‘harassment of a person (through the use of language) includes intentionally causing the person harm or distress; where it is considered reasonable for such offence to be taken and which follows from the words spoken by the alleged offender’. This may be long winded but it is more watertight than the original. I appreciate that since the legislation also says that an offence must be intentional, there is unlikely to be a misinterpretation of the Act in this respect, but I’m not so sure.

The punishments for those found guilty of an offence under this section of the Act includes 12 months in prison; but the guilty would also lose their jobs, they could lose their careers and possibly their home and family. Therefore, we should be extremely vigilant in eliminating ambiguities in any legislation that has the potential to impose such severe punishments. By the way, I should point out that I am totally opposed to this Act and am not convinced by the hypothesis that words cause harm in the same sense that fists do.

Section 4 of the Act (Offences of Stirring Up Hatred) is also disturbing in some respects. Under this section, it appears that I could have committed an offence if I communicated information that another reasonable person would consider to be ‘threatening, abusive or insulting’ and that I intended to stir up hatred against a group of people (i.e. a group based on age, disability, sexual orientation, religion or culture, transgender identity or variations in sex characteristics). I would also be condemned if a reasonable person believed my comments were likely to stir up hatred against one of these groups - so intention has been ditched as a requirement in this section.

This is a complete minefield of unexploded ordnance just waiting to be explored and detonated: I would hate to be a lawyer involved in any of this. I must admit that I have never encountered a group based on ‘variations in sex characteristics’, but maybe it exists somewhere. I must emphasize the fact that in the above scenario, I can commit an offence in the absence of intention, so long as a reasonable person judges my words likely to stir up hatred against one of these groups of people. It is also unclear in this section as to whether ‘communication’ involves intention; since I can communicate information inadvertently. Moreover, note that my words need not be abusive or threatening; they can be merely insulting in order to count as an offence.

This raises the possibility that a ‘reasonable person’ (one who is caught up in Woke politics, for example!) could judge me guilty of an offence because I called someone a ‘ginger nut’. It is, of course, debatable whether or not I would be stirring up hatred against ginger people with this phrase (which is clearly insulting), but some people – maybe the ‘reasonable person’ – may believe this to be the case. The reasonable person may also judge me harshly if I claimed that there are only two sexes, which would insult some group or other. The fact that it is true is of no relevance at all to Wokists or to Woke legislation. Wokism, involves an attempt to substitute what is (i.e. scientific matters) with what should be (matters of morality). This Scottish legislation does not appear to be able to (or want to) protect me from a guilty verdict simply by making a statement of fact; that there are only two sexes.

Imagine if I said one of the following on Facebook: a) I don’t feel comfortable in the company of black people or b) I dislike black people c) I think black people should return to the lands they originally came from d) I think black people are inferior. Would I be stirring up hatred against blacks or gays in making any of these statements? I think it would depend on who you asked; some would say that all these statements are examples of hate speech (i.e. would incite hatred against these groups) and some would say that none of them are. But the judgements we would make in this connection would be scientific/psychological judgements. I cannot help with this as a philosopher. Some of the statements could be judged to be racist, perhaps, but not necessarily. Anyway, even if they are racist, it does not follow that they would therefore stir up hatred of the groups referred to. The 1991 edition of the Oxford Concise Dictionary defines racism as ‘belief in the superiority of a particular race and prejudice based on this’ or ‘antagonism towards other races’. Only the final statement (d) above falls unequivocally under this definition.

However, definitions of racism vary and have changed under political pressure over the years, so it is not worth becoming involved in a discussion as to whether any of these statements are racist or not. The likelihood that any of them would incite hatred is a much more important issue since those making the claim must back this up with some scientific research - otherwise they should just keep their mouths firmly shut.

Concerns about ‘hate speech’ originated in Germany following World War Two, when it was assumed that anti-Semitic propaganda contributed to the holocaust. The extent to which this is true would require extensive research, but the claim is by no means indubitable – since many other factors were involved in creating the holocaust in addition to anti-Semitic attitudes (attitudes that had been popular in Germany and elsewhere long before the holocaust).

But the world we currently inhabit bears absolutely no resemblance to that of Germany in the 1930s. Western societies have moved on; we have had the Civil Rights Movement and the feminist movement of the 1960s and the 1970s. I am not saying that things like racism, homophobia and misogyny do not exist, but they are simply not problems that can be compared with their past incarnations. A huge problem arises, however, if we try to eliminate these things altogether. It takes very little imagination to see where such an approach would lead us – to the same place where zero acceptance of Sars Cov 2 took us: A Police State.

If we were to take Wokists seriously, we would have to assume that fascism or Nazism would be resurrected the moment we let our guard down by allowing free speech; that the far right is meeting in smoke filled rooms to discuss the overthrow of liberal ‘democracy’; that legislation oppressive to women and blacks still exists on the statute books; that institutionalised racism and patriarchy therefore still exist. This is the phoney world at its most reactionary, its most fantastic and its most desperate.

I have quoted sections of the Scottish legislation as an example of how this is open to misuse, intentional and otherwise. Such laws exist throughout Europe but I have said enough to make my points. Citizens of the USA enjoy some protection from the First Amendment in this respect, but this does not prevent massive censorship on mainstream social media platforms.

Of course, the judgements made against ‘linguistic transgressors’ who are not necessarily breaking the law, is much more unreasonable - as you may already know. Many such judgements are made in relation to things said on social media. The vitriolic and unforgiving nature of these judgements is quite startling and provides a sobering insight into the sad nature of the human beings making them. The punishments of ‘transgressors’ include ‘cancellation’ (the social media equivalent of being sent to Coventry¹), a ban (from Facebook or Twitter); the demonetising or removal of a YouTube channel or the loss of one’s job and career. All these are possible for using the wrong word. And, it seems, the strongest and most grovelling pleas for forgiveness more often than not fall on deaf ears. Most of you probably know this already.

So arguments about the meaning of a word can be very important indeed; given the possible consequences of inadvertently breaking a moral rule or a law and/or inadvertently causing offence through an uninformed or thoughtless choice in the use of language. No ‘excuses’ are permitted that can satisfy those who have given themselves the job of policing words. Is this phenomenon: i.e. the absence of forgiveness, an example of the consequences Nietzsche was fearful of when he predicted the decline in Christian influence (i.e. the ‘death of God’)?¹²

It is possible, in my view, that the attitudes of those who are unforgiving in relation to some language use, whether socially or as part of our legal systems, are based on an assumption that words (written or spoken) have an impact on individuals that is on a par with actions; an assumption that emotional ‘harm’ has a similar impact on human beings as physical harm. It also assumes that human beings are beyond redemption, which makes Christian forgiveness redundant - some would say that it makes Christianity redundant.

The judgements in these situations are the same in some cases even when the words under inspection are not being used in a derogatory manner. Once again, it seems that the word itself is ‘at fault’ and any individual employing it cannot do so innocently, or out of ignorance. Ignorance of ‘the law’, as they say, is no excuse: the same applies here.

But now I have reached the boundary between science and philosophy again and can venture no further. The comparative impact of words or actions on a human being are matters that can best be examined scientifically – as I have already suggested. But it is relevant to point to the possibility that the people I refer to have made an assumption (possibly erroneous) that pronouns can harm as much as fists.

The claims referred to by that much used phrase ‘inciting hatred towards a certain group’ are problematic in my view. Suppose I used a word on Facebook that one group finds insulting, does it follow that other users who see this will be incited in any way to hate the group I have insulted? Even if they were incited to hate, does it follow that any member of the insulted group would come to harm? Of course, I must accept that this is possible but I would need some evidence based on research to make a judgement on this. Moreover, those making laws would also need to be satisfied that the scientific evidence supports this claim.

It is also worth noting that in the absence of scientific evidence that words can hurt in the way that fists can hurt, or that words have a significant affect on the way we act, then the whole Woke project is, at base, a moral one. Wokists can have their own morality for all I care, but they cannot be allowed to impose this morality on others, especially when the law and spurious scientific claims are used to persuade us to conform.

The other worrying assumption the ‘Wokists’ sometimes make is that human beings are, in some circumstances at least, beyond redemption. Yes – I would say that’s worrying, depending on how widespread this unforgiving attitude permeates our societies. Social media can be its own ‘bubble’, totally divorced from, and not representative of, the vast majority of people. And we must be careful not to lose sight of that. Wokeness, though real enough, may appear to be a much bigger problem than it really is.

But, the Wokeness of social media, the law and higher education,¹³ eventually spills over into our schools, where words have become vehicles through which students can be punished, excluded or even expelled. My grandson, Henry, was recently accused of and punished for racism because he said ‘you’ve got hair like a gypsy’ to a friend. Henry was thirteen when he made this statement and he had no idea that gypsies are part of a race. But the teacher obviously believes that words have a power beyond and separate from the individual, who, in this case, had no idea of the implications of what he was saying, yet was still held to be guilty of an offence. But parents both here and in the USA are fighting back against the schools’ preoccupation with Woke ideas and their attempts to teach them.

In the USA, there are many states that teach Critical Race Theory (CRT), which claims that racism permeates US culture completely – even mathematics is considered to be racist. The reaction against this by parents has been very successful in some states, where some have managed to have CRT excluded from some curriculums. Similar ideas taught in schools, such as ‘white privilege’,¹⁴ are also being challenged by parents.

So, very few of us can escape Wokism. Maybe I am one of the lucky ones because I don’t work for anyone else and I don’t attend University or School. The only social media I use is YouTube and similar platforms, and since I very rarely make comments I am not likely to attract condemnation from Wokists. But I don’t think they will like this article very much and some would likely call me a fascist; just to be nasty.

I have focused on Wokism so much because it is through this ‘ideology’¹⁵ that language is most used to ‘dull our senses’. Many see Wokism as a form of religion; similar to ‘climate change’ (i.e. global warming). Whatever and whoever inspired its development, Wokism has become a reactionary force: a relic of the 19th century Romantic era that sometimes prioritised emotion over reason in constructing reality. This is a reality in which what is has been ontologically subordinated to what should be. But this can’t be anything more than transitory since reality always asserts itself in the long run. Some, though not all, of those Western leaders who tried to create a reality in which Ukraine (i.e. NATO) is winning its fight against Russia are beginning to learn this.

In the next section, I will be examining the way in which words can be used to shape thoughts and behaviour - which will be a much shorter read than this.

Best wishes - Rob

11 Many legal minds are concerned about the extent to which hate speech laws are impacting on free speech. See European Hate Speech Laws :: The Legal Project (legal-project.org) for some references.

12 This phrase is so often misunderstood that I have created Appendix Four to explain it in detail.

13 Political correctness, or Wokism, has become more pervasive in Universities since I left in 1999 and the graduates who enter into the various professions, especially school teaching and politics, bring their Wokeness with them. Wokism in Universities was discussed in Part One.

14 The notion that all white people have advantages over all black people, by virtue of being white, even though they don’t realise this. Critics of this would say: it depends on which white people and which black people we are talking about.

15 Some people refer to Wokism as an ideology that amounts to an awareness of social and racial injustices and seeks to challenge them.

1. Google it.