I wonder if anyone is offended by the use of the word "man" in our masthead quote above–anyone, that is, who is a more or less sympathetic reader of this blog. When I decided to use that line from Centesimus Annus I wanted to be sure I had it right, so I went looking for it on the web. (Yes, there is a paper copy of the encyclical somewhere in the house, but finding it could be a lengthy effort.) I found two versions of it: the one I used, and one which went something like "At the heart of every culture lies the attitude a person takes…"
Clearly this second version is an attempt to de-gender the sentence. Sometimes that can be done without damage, but in this case the result is simply wrong, in addition to sounding clumsy. The sentence is obviously referring to a collective attitude, not "a person’s," and the change makes something close to nonsense of the Pope’s words. The translators might more effectively have used "humanity" in place of "man," but such abstractions never sound quite as solid and real as the words they’re meant to replace.
I may be setting myself up to be blasted here, but I’ve always had trouble believing that linguistic artifacts such as the use of "man" are really so important as all that. I’m willing to concede that the existence of the term is a result of male dominance, but is it really so difficult for adults to accept the language as it is in a case like this, where everyone knows the term includes both men and women and the alternatives are so clumsy?
I have the sense that this problem, in spite of its emphasis by intellectuals, is fading as a concern in society at large, and in the Church. I thought about this recently when I ran across a book by a group of prominent theologians which was published immediately after the release of the Catechism, in 1990 or so. I think I’ll leave the names of the theologians out of this; suffice to say that of those I recognized all are well-known progressives.
Several of the writers objected vehemently to the collective "man" and other "sexist" locutions, and I was struck by their magisterial tone. I think the word "unacceptable" was used more than once, sometimes preceded by "simply." It’s often been observed that theologians have tended in recent decades to see themselves as a parallel or even superior magisterium, and that tendency was very much on display here. The whole tone of most of the writers was that of a professor evaluating the work of a less-than-impressive student, pointing out where the student seemed more or less on the right track, where he needed correction, and where he needed to dump what he had done and start over. (Yes, I know, I’m using the male default again.)
Well, everybody has heard such criticisms of progressive (or whatever you want to call them) theologians often enough, and there’s no need to go over that ground again. What really strikes me now, though, is how dated they seem. There hangs about them an air of unheeded bluster. Fifteen years later, I have the sense that voices like these are much less listened to than they once were, that they are becoming period pieces. I hope so.
–Maclin Horton
i hope so too.
“simply unacceptable” doesn’t exactly sound like tolerance to me.
Is it “progressive” to reject dialogue if the other person does not first adopt your language?
There will always be those who want to win debates by making their interlocutors use their terms; only a fool would accept such a basis for dialogue.
Personally, I use a more inclusive form of words if I am in a work situation where people present may be (whether rightly, wrongly etc) sensitive to such things. In fact, however, adult human beings are intellectually/emotionally capable of distinguishing between the form of words and the content the form is articulating; the rest is too often just the politicking of interest groups intent on social/political change. Their right of course but….
God bless you for helping to preserve both the English language and common sense. I’m a girl, and I couldn’t be less offended when I hear myself or any other woman grouped under the word “man,” as in the header of your blog. I think it is appropriate, attractive, and traditional. I am offended instead when I hear the word “person” or a quick “he/she” inserted where the collective “man” would clearly work much better. Now, if only we could drop the “brothers and sisters in Christ” bit . . .
I have always been somewhat of a language/grammar nerd. English is, to a significant extent, a neuter language unlike French or Latin for example. There are only a few instances in which one needs a singular pronoun to cover a group that may include males and females and the Great Language Committee of Antiquity chose ‘his’ for this purpose. This seemed perfectly reasonable to me in high school. When I got to unnamed-catholic-women’s-college suddenly this was a Big Deal but I never bought it. I couldn’t believe that these highly educated women- mostly sisters- (whom I admired on many levels) could see oppression in a simple grammar rule and then create such awkward and ugly ways around it. ‘Who are the chairpeople for the dance?’ There is without a doubt oppression of women going on in the world today. This isn’t part of it. Press on!
It’s good to hear from women who aren’t bothered by this. I mean, I sincerely don’t want to alienate people needlessly over this stuff, and up to a point I can understand the basic complaint, but I’ve always felt that the better tactic is to allow traditional constructs like the collective “man” to become broadened in all our minds, rather than to resort to these ungainly workarounds. I think the former course is slower but surer.
I would be offended if you altered the quote to ‘inclusive language’. Quite some time ago I wrote a couple of long diatribes on my blog about this topic, and I find myself in agreement with both Madeleine L’Engle and Kathleen Norris that soi-disant ‘inclusive language’ is both an affront to English and to the 51% of the population that has matching sex chromosomes.
A brief quote from Heinlein’s SF novel “Stranger in a Strange Land”
“I am a man, a female man”
The soul is that which causes the flesh to be human, with the material soul having its cause through the man. Thus the human race is through men and not through women.
For instance , if Eve had sinned but Adam not have sinned, sin would not have passed down to their offspring.
As St. Thomas Aquinas writes:
Reply to Objection 2: Original sin is caused by the semen as instrumental cause. Now there is no need for anything to be more in the instrumental cause than in the effect; but only in the principal cause: and, in this way, original sin was in Adam more fully, since in him it had the nature of actual sin.” I-II Q.83 A.1
A feminine signification, or even a neutral signification, denies that which is proper to generation.
By the way, ( and although seeking out women’s specific women’s views on the issue makes no more sense than calling abortion a women’s issue ), my wife, Jule, detests the feminine and neutral significations.
Boy, you can sure spot a TAC graduate, can’t you? Is it true that they have the Summa in the tabernacle of their chapel?
[Only kidding...]
Once upon a time I asked my wife, just to wind her up, if the term “mail man” is redundant, and what one should call a female mailman. She replied, “postal worker”. Of course, that’s right up there with the question, can an all-female jury being hung? Sorry.
Once upon a time at CUA I remember a proposed hymn being rejected, because of its refrain: “God and Man at table are sat down.”
Hello Daniel,
Long time no see. I suppose the passage from Thomas is a bit obscure for proving the point isn’t it?
This is better:
“404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.” Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm#III
Hi Franklin, good to see you show up here. Yes, I prefer the catechism to the summa; I hope that doesn’t make me suspect.
I was never, as you know, much of a Thomist, prefering Bonaventure and Scotus. Of course now, as a Byzantine Catholic, I better not admit any admiration for any of the scholastics. The East considers them, with some justification, to have divided theology from mysticism. Of course Thomas’ less brilliant imitators are more guilty for this than he.
How many chillun do you have? I married late, as you probably have gathered, but have four with one on the way [my wife is considerably younger than I].
Daniel Nichols writes March 1, 11:05 am : “I prefer the catechism”
But did you catch the source in the footnotes for the quote in the Catechism? ;-)
________ _________________
On to a different subject:
We have four children. Lucy 14, Crispin 10, Mary 4, and Scholastica 2.