Cows, pigs, me, thee
Tuesday August 7, 2007
Categories: Eugenics
In the comboxes below on one of the eugenics threads, there was a discussion over whether it is proper to use the verb "to breed" to describe human reproduction. I say it's inappropriate, because the use of a term more...
Filed Under: Eugenics
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
"We should not accustom ourselves to thinking of human reproduction as merely a biological process, no different in kind than animal breeding,"
Or just because we can "procreate" (just like animals). That very reason is why I myself advocate for "procreation" control.
In reply to the anonymous poster above: but are you honestly saying that you think of humans as no different, really, from cows or pigs? That sex is nothing more than a purely biological process, and that every husband and wife see each other with no more emotion than an ox sees a waiting heifer? (And if so, would you mind if we start referring to you as either an "ox" or "heifer?")
God bless.
Cows and pigs are very different from humans and much more valuable. You can eat cows and pigs.
Dear Joey, (BTW, the offspring of the delightful kangaroo) You can refer to me however you like. I'm saying the opposite that we are better than oxen, pigs, et cetera, and should use a reasoned approach to many things, including sex and procreation; and that we should elevate our procreation from "breeding" by using reason,thought, and "planning." Bringing a child into the world is a lot more significant (although just as natural)and of much more impact to me than a sow birthing her litters.
Yours truly,
Heifer.
I think the language that is used matters a great deal. Although I think sex is a powerful instinct, I think the term "breeding" when it refers to the procreative act between humans is incredibly dismissive and hostile. We are animals, but we don't operate solely on instincts We have free will, or at least enough of an illusion that we have free will to make a difference.
An axiom I've frequently heard is that all social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering.
The use of terms like "breed" and "breeders" to refer to human reproduction is both dehumanizing and depersonalizing, and in my encounters with those who use these terms in this way I've had no reason to doubt the intentionality of that effect.
Joey, how do you know oxen don't feel passionate emotion towards their heifer?
Regarding eugenics in general...I've recently settled down in a small town that was founded by three families a hundred-odd years ago. Here, I first heard the term 'double cousin' meaning that a person is cousin to another through both their father and mother. They are nice folks and all, but it seems to me that at least one stock-breeding procedure - outbreeding - might have been practiced to good effect.
John (Ox)
John E, It is quite simple to have "double cousins" without genetic "inbreeding". For example, some of my own cousins are double cousins in that a brother and sister from one family married a sister and brother of a different family. None of the parents were related. Or, of course, two sisters of one family could marry two brothers of the other. In smaller and more isolated communities, before travel was so easy and fast, these sort of situations were not uncommon.
Mary
Funny, but I remember from my Deep South childhood hearing older whites use the term "breeding" to refer to the reproduction of poor blacks -- as if they and their offspring were animals. White people, even poor ones, didn't "breed"; they had babies. Unlike the blacks, who were thought by these old folks to be subhuman.
Language matters.
It may be a function of time and place. I have heard good white northeastern families refer to people as having "good breeding." It was not uncommon to hear "She comes from good stock," as well.
The use of terms like "breed" and "breeders" to refer to human reproduction is both dehumanizing and depersonalizing, and in my encounters with those who use these terms in this way I've had no reason to doubt the intentionality of that effect.
Yes, this has been my experience as well.
I have a similar discomfort with use of the terms "male" and "female" to refer to specific human beings in an everyday context. As in, "I saw him talking to a tall female yesterday." I understand that this is partly youth slang, meant to be provocative, but since it is so often used in a sexualized and/or derogatory context (e.g. "What more would you expect from that male?") it bothers me. It's not quite the same as the "breeder" language, which is mostly used by an "in" group against an "out" group. Historically, the "male/female" language has been used the same way, but it is currently more often used about the speaker's own peers. Nevertheless, I feel it has a similar effect on those who use the term, as if the speaker is dehumanizing other members of his or her own group, or even his or her own self. Yuck.
Since my posts in the previous thread seem to have contributed to this one -- and even if they didn't -- I am moved to offer respect for the semantics and the reactions they elicit. I believe that focusing solely on the pejorative usage of terms like "to breed" is limiting and ultimately defeating towards the goal of good discussion. I've stated my case to my satisfaction, and I will let the sleeping horse lie. If objectionable usages creep back into my writing, the reader should not hesitate to point it out to me.
I will reiterate (with contextual clean-up) my concluding point from the other thread.
The problem brought into relief by the politics of eugenics is also simple: is it moral to impose on certain people the care of those who are going to die, but whose death has been postponed? I refer to people whose expected mortality is strongly supported by medical science, in that all of the interventions known at the time cannot be counted on to do anything more than put off the inevitable. At what point (copulation, conception, in utero or post-partum) is it moral to make the decision? And finally, who gets to make that decision for the entire society and culture, and do we empower the decider to enforce the decisions on all of those who disagree with it?
I recognize that my questions exclude the non-fatal but still serious conditions. It is intended to focus the prospective answers, not to ignore the importance of that subset.
The last poster (is that "Heifer" again?) makes a good point, but even then, think about it---back in those days, people pretty much WERE bred, in that you just hunted down the man with the best job, or the prettiest woman of the best family, or whatever. We do not want to go to that, do we?
Ah, interesting dystopian future: a massive government beaurocracy is given the job of assigning all couples together, based on what is seen as the best offspring to be given. Smart people will be bred together to make smart babies, athletic people assigned together to produce strong babies, and so on, to create special castes for special jobs. This is what we basically do to dogs, after all---we breed dogs to have special traits so they can be destined for special jobs. Anyone like this idea?
God bless.
Naturalmom,
I've always liked your posts, and the most recent one is no exception, but I am honestly aghast at your point: what the heck (excuse me) should we say when the intent is to refer to the member of a gender?
I believe in specific intent with usage. I will call females of reproductive age or older "woman", as that is an accurate term, but I will chose to call any female in that category "girl" if I intend to imply my impression or view of her relative emotional maturity compared to her age. One can, if one wishes, take offense at my usage of "girl" in that context; it would not change my intended meaning(s).
Anyway, I'm not reacting to you personally here. I am reacting to the implicit corruption of language that is the direct result of political correctness run amuck, coupled with the notion that I must not say anything that could possibly offend someone, even if that someone's offense is clearly based on false assumptions and/or conclusions. I refuse to be tongue-tied, milady, before I even draw breath to speak. :-D
P.S.: Do you know how many kangaroo jokes I have had to endure in my life? And how much they infuriate me so?
Franklin, I'm going to go ahead and answer for naturalmom here, hope she doesn't mind. It isn't the specifying of gender which is offensive, but the specific usage of "male" and "female" to refer to a specific person. NM is right that this is primarily a youth thing. I think it got started with something like the idea of calling someone a woman rather than a lady because she doesn't deserve to be called a lady. Take that one step down and you have "I won't call her a woman because she doesn't deserve to be so dignified." It was really a slam. "I'll identify you by your gender, but I won't grant you even the minimal status of woman." Now it is in common usage regardless of the merits of the person in question. "I saw a male yesterday who had a funky hair do." "That female over there has 2 shorties." etc. What started as a slam has now turned into just another way to identify someone. I agree with NM that it's an offensive and unhealthy way of talking about another person.
I do get it, rebecca, perhaps better than most. I learned my definitions of respect and courtesy from the Old World traditions directly. One offers respect up front, and grudgingly withdraws it unless the behavior is egregious. Not the best of formulas, to be sure, but it serves better than anything I've seen in the last 40 years.
The other part, though, is some curmugdeonly impatience on my part. If you know what the intended usage is about, and you understand that the intended usage does not fit with your preferred usage, then where do you get off (pardon the expression) imposing your offended sensibilities on people who simply don't hear what you are hearing?
You wrote: What started as a slam has now turned into just another way to identify someone.
How is that different from an educated man using the term "niggardly" properly in context, but being criticized for that usage because ignorant people who don't know how to use a dictionary are offended by it?
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire091702.asp
I believe that the same lack of rational thought is taking place in each example.
This HAS turned into an interesting discussion!
Mary: Yes, but some of these double-cousins are married to each other!
Rod & Anon: Down South I've heard breed used in a pejorative sense (like flies) but not necessarily limited to a single ethnic group. I've also heard 'good stock' used to describe a family or a person's ancestry.
Franklin: My opinions on the questions you present are that before delivery, all decisions regarding the continuation of the pregnancy should be vested in the pregnant woman on the basis that it would be a violation of her personhood to force her to continue a pregnancy she does not desire. Post-partum, decisions regarding life-prolonging medical interventions should be the joint decision of both parents. I would not support interventions that had the primary purpose of hastening death, but would support medicines used for the purpose of relieving pain even if the foreseeable result of those medicines would be to hasten death.
Joey: I don't like the idea of an Authoritarian State making those decisions, but I would support couples having the option of using genetic screening or genetic manipulation to create the child with the combination of traits they prefer.
rebeccat: The only time I've heard 'female' used as a specific referent in a non-clinical setting was when the speaker was clearly too well-bred to say "b*tch".
John
I don't know about northeastern usage of "breeding" and "stock" for humans, but like Rod, I know that when people are referred to as if they were not human it is usually because in the speaker's mind they're not. It is very easy to kill or enslave those that are not seen as human, and during slavery blacks were bred like animals to obtain "mulattos, quadroons, octaroons, etc." as playthings for their master's friends.
As far as prolonging life with machines etc. it is a complicated issue as is "engineering"(the new word for breeding) humans, but basically I think it's playing God and is rarely if ever appropiate. "Engineering" scares me because, knowing human nature, it would degenerate into genocide and the creation of an elite race. Same old, same old.
I understand the concern over the use of teenagers usage of 'female' to refer to young women or ladies. I've noticed that it was begun by young guys with troubling relationships to women and little hometraining.The last is not a slam but an unpleasanttruth; their are at least two, maybe three generation of young people who do not learn any hometraining at all.
I have taught teenage guys who do this (and though they have hometraining, some of my family members do this too)and I really think it is a result of being brought up in a suffocating all women atmosphere. It seems to me like it's their way to they create distance and feel a sense of power by referring to women impersonally as one of a species.
Always felt the praise in some conservative circles for Charles Murray's bizarre work was profoundly disturbing. Certainly Murray takes some big stewps down that trail, and yet some don't see it.
John said, "I don't like the idea of an Authoritarian State making those decisions, but I would support couples having the option of using genetic screening or genetic manipulation to create the child with the combination of traits they prefer."
But doesn't this then see the child as a commodity to be selected, rather than an individual with intrinsic worth? In this scenario, aren't we actually talking about "breeding," as in circumventing the natural process of reproduction and deliberately creating a child with specific physical characteristics we think of as valuable (and destroying the embryonic humans who don't measure up)?
I personally hold no truck with eugenics or any killing of humans at all so common today (eugenics, abortion, stem-cell, or in-vitro: to me it's all murder). However, it is very proper to use the term "breed" when referring to the science of human procreation - such as deomgraphics and the like.
Why? Because it's hard to keep focused on any human science objectively when talking about personal things (like children). Once one's emotions enter the picture, the correct predictions and cool heads are hard to come by. People are often subject to wishful thinking.
For example: a doctor removes himself from his patient; he doesn't say, "I'm going to cut John's heart open here" - rather, he says "the patient". And we all know why. He must remove his emotional context from the situation to keep his mind clear. Personally, I want my doc to be focused on the science of my body, not me the person, when he cuts. Same deal in any human science...if you want the right answer.
For the above reasons, I prefer the term "breed" when discussing demographics. However, due to the trama inflicted upon sensitive souls, I'll forgo the term in the future. I've noticed emotions tend to trump reason anyway, regardless the language...
Hi Franklin,
Rebecca clarified my point quite well (thanks R.), so I won't rehash that part.
I'm scratching my head over this statement you made: I am reacting to the implicit corruption of language that is the direct result of political correctness run amuck, coupled with the notion that I must not say anything that could possibly offend someone, even if that someone's offense is clearly based on false assumptions and/or conclusions. I was simply mentioning MY discomfort with the language I described, and gave some reasons why it bothered me. You are free to use those terms in any way you choose. Methinks you may be taking PC worries too far, or perhaps too personally. I hear language that makes me uncomfortable or offended pretty frequently, but that doesn't mean I wish to ban it, or even to confront the speaker directly (unless we are close friends or the language is outrageously offensive.) However, I do reserve the right to speak my mind about it in a public discussion. I don't see how that should inhibit your own speech, unless you have so much respect for me that you can't bear to make me cringe. ;o)
>Always felt the praise in some conservative circles for Charles Murray's bizarre work was profoundly disturbing. Certainly Murray takes some big stewps down that trail, and yet some don't see it.
Bugg, Charles Murray does good work. Knowledge is good.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050828_murray.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/bell_curve_10yr.htm
http://www.amconmag.com/11_17_03/review.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
John said, "I don't like the idea of an Authoritarian State making those decisions, but I would support couples having the option of using genetic screening or genetic manipulation to create the child with the combination of traits they prefer."
But doesn't this then see the child as a commodity to be selected, rather than an individual with intrinsic worth? In this scenario, aren't we actually talking about "breeding," as in circumventing the natural process of reproduction and deliberately creating a child with specific physical characteristics we think of as valuable (and destroying the embryonic humans who don't measure up)?
Posted by: Erin Manning | August 8, 2007 2:36 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Short answer: Yes, but I'm okay with that.
Longer answer: Let's imagine that there was a pill that could modify the genes that caused Downs Syndrome. Would it be wrong to give a child with that condition this pill? Would it be wrong to use genetic manipulation to modify the genetic variation that causes Downs syndrome while the embryo was in utero?
As for destroying embryos that don't meet certain specifications, I don't have an ethical problem with that because I think that a requirement for personhood must at least include the presence of a unique personality, which requires a brain with a certain amount of development not found in the early embryonic stages.
John E.
Naturalmom, you are correct: I was overreacting a bit on the PC issues. I actually enjoy making people cringe, but the result has to include a learning moment immediately thereafter... so it is safe to say that I would rather avoid making you cringe. I am arrogant, q.e.d., but not so much to think that I can teach lessons to everyone who comes along.
And as I wrote earlier, I like your posts. I have neither intent nor desire to change the way you write. :-)
The animal-human distinction is common in many languages, including English (foot/paw, nose/snout). German has ess for "eat" when a human is doing it, and fress for eat when an animal is, so of course when used of a human subject, fress means to eat like an animal.
I don't know of such a distinction involving "breed" in English. "Reproduce" is hoity-toity Latin, but "breed" is Germanic through Old English and hence more popular. The transitive "beget" is obsolete and not quite the same, referring mostly to men. "Spawn" has something fishy about it and "engender" has referred to plants since Chaucer.
I once read something where a white man referred to black women "dropping babies like rats," but that won't do, either.
So I dunno. Got a human equivalent for "breed"? I don't.
Of course "language matters", Rod.
"Cows, people, the slaughterhouse, Auschwitz...the language we use to discuss these issues matters immensely"
So explain, please, YOUR frequent use of "lavender jackboots" [a not-so-faint reference to Auschwitz where tens of thousands of gay people lost their lives] when refering to gay people!!!
"But doesn't this then see the child as a commodity to be selected, rather than an individual with intrinsic worth?" And especially in light of the tradition of male domination, preference and patriarchal lineage?
I'd go for "reproduce" when we need to talk about the issue in a scientific-type context, but even then, we must keep in mind that that's only half of what is really being discussed---it is, basically, the scientific half, useful in certain contexts, but a loving couple who decide to have children are not "reproducing"---they are "having a baby," which is a combination of reproducing with a thousand other variables that make it much more than some base natural process.
God bless.
So explain, please, YOUR frequent use of "lavender jackboots"...when refering to gay people!!!
Might the battalion chief in this story be an example?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292442,00.html
I'd go for "reproduce" when we need to talk about the issue in a scientific-type context
Good option, Joey. I never thought of using that one.
However, I fear it has nearly the same "negatives" as breeding would with some.
M_David, there will always be someone offended by something. In the meantime, I liked your post about objective use of terminology. You made the point better than I tried to do.
Recovering Ex,
Rod can speak for himself, of course, but I'm compelled to recall that he has been previously called out for the jack-boot lavender remark and he acknowledged its inappropriateness.
Franklin,
I regret that I haven't had time to respond to you on this thread, but it is interesting. Also, do you detect a new cordiallity here? I do.
Again, I try to make a more substantive response later.
Norris,
I hadn't read that Rod had "acknowledged [the] inappropriateness" of his "lavender jackboots" comment. If that is the case, fine.
Scott in PA,
No, that is NOT an example. Gay people did nto force the fire department to march in the parade; the Fire Chief did. Take it up with him.
So explain, please, YOUR frequent use of "lavender jackboots" [a not-so-faint reference to Auschwitz where tens of thousands of gay people lost their lives] when refering to gay people!!!
Oh good grief, settle down. I used it once, not to refer to all gay people, just those who militantly wish to suppress those who disagree with them. A reader called me on it, and I agreed that it wasn't civil, and withdrew the remark.
If it isn't appropriate to use the term "breeding" when referring to human beings, how come conservatives think it's "politically correct," and therefore reprehensible, to use the term "undocumented workers" rather than "illegal aliens," or "child born of unmarried parents" rather than "illegitimate child"? Use of such terms to imply that a person's very existence is against the law is at least as anti-human as "breeding."
Yes, please don't get offended by some people's confusion with conservative political correctness. There is a learning curve for almost everything.
Marian, you see why I personally ignore political correctness. I believe in being polite, but I don't believe in lying.
I agree. "Breed" is never a term to use regarding human procreation.
From the American history book "Albion's Seed" by David Hackett Fischer
pp 304-305:
"The sex ways of the Southern colonies differed from New England in other ways as well. Virginians had a way of thinking about fertility which set them apart from New England Puritans. The people of Virginia thought less of the biblical commandments to increase and multiply and replenish the earth which so obsessed the Puritans, and more of breeding stocks and bloodlines. Children of the elite were bred to one another in a manner not unlike dogs and horses. Much interest was shown in bloodlines. The gentry of Virginia studied one another's genealogies as closely as a stockman would scrutinize his stud books."
"Women in the Chesapeake were called "breeders", a word not unknown in New England, but decidedly less common."
Euphemism is the last refuge of cowards.
"Marian, you see why I personally ignore political correctness. I believe in being polite, but I don't believe in lying."
Exactly what "politically correct" terms are "lying"? Most such formulations simply tell as much of the truth as seems relevant to the speaker. Kind of like calling a spade a spade instead of a bloody shovel (which I think is Chesterton.)
I'll concede up front that "lying" is hyperbolic. The principle remains, to wit:
The pejorative connotations of any term are in the ear of the beholder. I do not deny the valid lexicon shifts that take place over time, in response to groups desiring to assuage or mitigate the pejorative "damage". I partake of it myself. I no longer use the term "gypsy", and I have replaced it in my mind and usage with "Rom" or the grammatical equivalent.
That is not, in my mind, a consequence of political correctness. It is an aspect of the evolution of language.
On the other side are essentially arbitrary shifts in usage and meaning. Take the term "black", in the US most often used to refer to a person of African descent. It is a literal translation of the older term "negro", the corrupted form of which being the infamous "n" word we all must not use. I can and do support the removal of the "n" word from any connection to polite discourse. I do not support the arbitrary removal of "negro" or "black" because both were or are valid words in the lexicon of the past or present. They obtain pejorative connotation because someone decided they did, not because they were used that way.
Besides, not all blacks come from Africa, at least not within a few enough number of generations for it to have any semantic significance.
I will use African-American when asked to by anyone who has a personal connection to the term. I will not use it as a general term, for the same reason I will not use Irish-American or Italian-American with the kids I grew up with, because they neither used them or thought of themselves in that fashion. I am first generation. I am as close to my ethnic heritage as I can be for not having been born in the country of origin. However, calling me a Yugoslav-American would be a meaningless exercise.
In the meantime, I will continue to refer to my black neighbors and black coworkers, and I will read or hear "negro" as a valid term that can place the user in a certain age group at the least. No other connotations need apply.
The "lexicon shifts" FE refers to can also be characterized as the difference between exonyms and endonyms (I admit to coining these terms for an anthropology paper some years ago.) An endonym is what the members of a group call themselves. An particular exonym is what members of a group are called by outsiders. A general exonym is what members of a group call anybody outside the group. So Rom is the endonym for the people known from the outside as gypsies; their general exonym for everybody else is gajo (or, among the Spanish gitanos, payo.) Some particular exonyms are ethnic slurs; some are neutral.
I too have a preference for "black" over "African-American," mainly because I like monosyllables generally. Aside from which, "African-American" in its current usage is not comparable to "Italian-American." Barack Obama is a REAL first-generation African-
American, but there aren't too many of those in the US these days.
Damn, Marian, I just fell in love with you. "Endonym" and "exonym" are excellent terms that deserve to be formalized; they are semantically evocative and elegantly simple and direct. Are you aware of the Wiki entry for these words? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exonym_and_endonym
I agree that my hyphenation example is flawed. It was the best way I could think of to make the point.
I'm also impressed that you are familiar with Rom culture. I don't generally find it outside the small ethnic music and dance subculture.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.