« Where We Are Now | Main | Setting the Straw on Fire »

March 3, 2008

Semantics Out of Context

Are the verbs "reject" and "denounce" interchangeable?

Adam Freedman, in a Week in Review column, points out quite correctly that these verbs are different in a certain way. So one might then be fooled into thinking Freedman is making an important point about Hillary Clinton's protest in last week's debate that Barack Obama in "denouncing" Louis Farrakhan was apparently not "rejecting" him. Clinton's protest was silly and Freedman's analysis is even sillier. He writes:

"Tim, I have to say I don’t see any difference between rejecting and denouncing."

With those words to Tim Russert, Barack Obama hoped to defuse a tense exchange in last Tuesday’s debate over his apparent reluctance to repudiate Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam. Hillary Clinton had been urging Mr. Obama to be a rejecter, not just a denouncer, at least where Mr. Farrakhan was concerned.

The silliness begins in the lead. Notice that Freedman introduces another verb--repudiate--in his speculation (unfounded) that Obama is reluctant to reject. How many of these verbs are there to consider? How many is Obama supposed to use?

What's really interesting to consider is how Clinton's rhetorical tactic actually works--and Freedman (accidentally?) lets us see the man behind the curtain. It doesn't matter what verb Obama chooses to reject, denounce, repudiate, condemn, disapprove, disavow, renounce, spurn, censure, or dismiss the odious Mr. Farrakhan. Clinton can simply choose another verb and claim Obama should instead be _____ing instead.

This tactic "works" (remains to be seen) because the two men moderating the debate are ill-prepared and disinclined to identify and question rhetoric. The tactic may further work because critics such as Freedman ignore that meaning and intention always exist in complex contexts that cannot be simply reduced to semantics or derivation.

Let's consider another interesting moment in Freedman's column:

Patrons in fancy restaurants often reject a bottle of disappointing wine, but they rarely go to the trouble of denouncing it. In the debate, Mr. Obama focused on “denouncing,” apparently to suggest that his public condemnation of Mr. Farrakhan ought to resolve any doubt about where he stands.

But in this context, “reject” implies an even more thorough rebuke, which is perhaps why Mr. Obama initially resisted the word. Reject derives from the Latin reicere, “to throw back.” To reject something means to refuse to receive, accept or even recognize it. You hurl it back, literally or metaphorically. By emphasizing the need to “reject” Mr. Farrakhan, Mrs. Clinton was disputing Mr. Obama’s statement that he could not stop the controversial minister from saying that “he thinks I’m a good guy.”

Notice that Freedman has no idea what Obama is thinking or intending. He properly qualifies his remarks using "apparently" and "perhaps" as a way to, apparently and perhaps, signal that he has learned intentions. Freedman tells us that "in this context" the verb "reject" is a "more thorough rebuke" (ha! add that to the list of verbs above). His proof? None. Zilch. We get another lesson in derivation and selective definition.

Can Obama "stop the controversial minister from saying that 'he thinks I’m a good guy'"? If Obama says he rejects him rather than, or in addition to, denouncing him, will that make Farrakhan shut his pie hole?

(I'll pause while you snicker.)

Let's hope the level of discourse (and criticism) rises as this campaign moves forward.

(I'll pause while you snicker.)



Posted by acline at March 3, 2008 9:48 AM | | Spotlight