Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Semantics When Referring To Men And Mankind

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

In her literature, Ayn Rand spoke of man and mankind. In this day of political correctness it is tempting to yield to the objections some people might have to these terms, reasoning that it is better to use different words if it will avoid possible protest, and get the point across quicker.

I think there are appropriate places for shying away from the use of these terms. For instance, I wouldn't start a sentence by going: "I would like all the men on this forum to post their ideas" when refering to all people on the forum. This is politeness, because in some contexts, using 'men' to refer to all people is genuinely implying male superiority, or otherwise simply refering to men only.

But I think there is another strong reason to stick with and use the words that Rand did. They are the only words in the english language that are used for refering to more than one person that - from my perspective at least - denote individuality.

If you used the word "people" when speaking of individuals, it would not carry the implication of individuality across; instead, the words "people" and "person" carry with them the suggestion of a faceless person within the essential collective. I think these terms have gradually amassed these negative messages from their heavy use in the preachings of collectivism and altruism. Speaking of man and mankind carries with it the sense of individuality, and I think this is why Rand was taken to using those terms so especially.

Ultimately, the matter seems unsettled for me. Replacing the word 'man' with 'people' when quoting or paraphrasing Rand seems blasphemous, as it diminishes the sense of virtue behind the words. The word 'people' almost seems corrupt and selfless in the context of Rand's writing. Is this an extreme impression or does anyone else share these feelings?

Having said that about Rand's work, the words 'man' and 'mankind' would look startlingly archaic and out of place in almost any modern text.

For those who think this is a non-issue, I assume that they would know how I should resolve it, and I'd be keen to hear what that resolution is. :) It's not a big issue for me either, but right now I just go with my gut feeling when choosing my words, rather than going from any rational premise that I'm aware of.

EDIT: Another possibility is that I've gradually associated the words with individuality because Rand is one of the few books I've read that uses them- and they really carry no such meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who think this is a non-issue, I assume that they would know how I should resolve it ...

How you resolve this issue is up to you, but consider that the "politically correct" use-of-words movement is not as much an attempt at fairness, but more an attempt to obliterate meaning. If you find it "tempting to yield to the objections some people might have to these terms [man and mankind]," the ask yourself why. First try to present their arguments in as clear and precise a manner that you can formulate. I suspect when you attempt doing this, how for you to resolve this issue, will become clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to think that the controversy surrounding the use of male pronouns in a gender neutral way was silly, and primarily caused by the overreaction of feminists. The following essay convinced me otherwse, and I now generally try to stick to gender-neutral terms unless it makes my prose look _really_ ugly. However, when quoting someone, I wouldnt alter the original text; the use of quotation marks normally implies that you are relaying the author's words exactly, rather than your interpretation of them. With Rand this goes doubly so; Rand's use of words like 'man' and 'mankind' was very deliberate, and to change them would often alter her underlying message on a level that goes beyond pure semantics.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think there is another strong reason to stick with and use the words that Rand did. They are the only words in the english language that are used for refering to more than one person that - from my perspective at least - denote individuality.

If you used the word "people" when speaking of individuals, it would not carry the implication of individuality across; instead, the words "people" and "person" carry with them the suggestion of a faceless person within the essential collective.

I want to add a note on the implications of chosing the word "man". It is grammatically singular but (used in the sense "homo sapiens" as contrasted to "male") semantically plural, which strengthens the sense of individuality while still allowing the universal reading, as not just one man (this also holds for "woman"). You don't have that option wth "person", which is exclusively singular. You can express the same basic idea less economically (and, frankly, clumsily) with "each person", but this has a "distributive" meaning, to throw around jargon, which emphasizes a relation of individuals to a collective. These properties makes the word "man" particularly suitable for use in "generic" statements such as "Man is a rational animal".

The use of "man" in this sense is not really "archaic", in the way that "thy" is archaic; but it might be "traditional style", invoking classics such as "The Ascent of Man", and Paine's "The Rights of Man".

The basic PC rationale for avoiding the word "man" is, needless to say, silly beyond belief. The real test is simply to take something that you want to say, and test the wording. What about the title of ch. 24 of CUI, "Requiem for Man". How about "Requiem for People"? :D "Requiem for Mankind" :P. Or CUI Introduction "as if a blind, despair-crazed mob were burning a straw man," changed to "as if a blind, despair-crazed mob were burning a straw human" :D. Or CUI ch. 1 "In psychology, one may observe the attempt to study human behavior without reference to the fact that man is conscious" could be rewritten as "In psychology, one may observe the attempt to study human behavior without reference to the fact that mankind is conscious" :D

The solution is to just say what you need to say, and chose the words that most clearly convey your intent. If the word "man" is somewhere unclear or inappropriate, then use a better word. And nerts to this PC stuff. Next thing you know, they will outlaw the words "manage" and "command".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel compelled to say this, as I just came off the "Humor" thread. When women get angry about using the word "mankind" or "man" to denote everyone, all of humanity, as individuals, I always just look at them and say, "Well, that sounds like a personal problem." And they always either laugh, or stop complaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to think that the controversy surrounding the use of male pronouns in a gender neutral way was silly, and primarily caused by the overreaction of feminists. The following essay convinced me otherwse...

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html

May I ask why you found that "essay" convincing? Frankly, I think Hofstadter's nuts in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...