Lingua Franca #3: Revolutionary

NOT CONSTRUCTION, BUT DESTRUCTION; NOT REFORM, BUT REVOLUTION!

“The Roosevelt administration was worried by Long's growing popularity and on 4 March 1935, General Hugh S. Johnson in a radio speech denounced Long and Coughlin as this "great Louisiana demagogue and this political padre", going on to accuse the duo of speaking "with nothing of learning, knowledge nor experience to lead us through a labyrinth that has perplexed the minds of men since the beginning of time...  These two men are raging up and down this land preaching not construction, but destruction-not reform, but revolution! "”
 
--  Wikipedia: Huey Long

***
 
LINGUA FRANCA #3: REVOLUTION
 
Well, the general pattern of our investigation is clear enough – we find some important word, investigate what concepts it maps to, and use it to clarify our general thinking from its class of words. On the way, we hopefully learn a little history and get smarter in general.
 
So, no need to bury the lede here – revolutionary used to be a very disreputable word. Revolutionary things were bad things.
 
General Hugh Johnson – one of Franklin Roosevelt’s braintrust, and thus not in any way an ultra-conservative type like Metternich – condemned Huey Long for “preaching not construction, but destruction-not reform, but  revolution ! ”
 
I mean, isn’t that odd  to our modern ears? Equating “destruction” and “revolution” – when Apple advertises a revolutionary new iPhone, they’re obviously not equating themselves with Huey Long.

What’s going on here? “Revolutionary” went from a negative valence to a positive one – it’s now time to explore valence in this chapter – and the word has flipped in its implications and feeling about it.
 
What happened? How did this happen? And as our words have shuffled around, are we smarter, stupider, neither, or both as a result?
 
***
 
YAY/BOO THEORY
 
“I am a normative utilitarian and a descriptive emotivist: I believe utilitarianism is the correct way to resolve moral problems, but that the normal mental algorithms for resolving moral problems use emotivism.
 
“ Emotivism, aka the yay/boo theory, is the belief that moral statements, however official they may sound, are merely personal opinions of preference or dislike. Thus, "feeding the hungry is a moral duty" corresponds to "yay for feeding the hungry!" and "murdering kittens is wrong" corresponds to "boo for kitten murderers!"
 
“ Emotivism is a very nice theory of what people actually mean when they make moral statements.  Billions of people around the world, even the non-religious, happily make moral statements every day without having any idea what they reduce to or feeling like they ought to reduce to anything.
 
“ Emotivism also does a remarkably good job capturing the common meanings of the words "good" and "bad".  An average person may have beliefs like "pizza is good, but seafood is bad", "Israel is good, but Palestine is bad", "the book was good, but the movie was bad", "atheism is good, theism is bad", "evolution is good, creationism is bad", and "dogs are good, but cats are bad". Some of these seem to be moral beliefs, others seem to be factual beliefs, and others seem to be personal preferences. But we are happy using the word "good" for all of them, and it doesn't feel like we're using the same word in several different ways, the way it does when we use "right" to mean both "correct" and "opposite of left". It feels like they're all just the same thing. The moral theory that captures that feeling is emotivism. Yay pizza, books, Israelis, atheists, dogs, and evolution! Boo seafood, Palestinians, movies, theists, creationism, and cats!
 
“Remember, evolution is a crazy tinker who recycles everything. So it would not be surprising to find that our morality is a quick hack on the same machinery that runs our decisions about which food to eat or which pet to adopt.”
 
-- Yvain on LessWrong,  The Trouble With “Good”
 
***
 
VALENCE AND YAY/BOO
 
“ Valence, as used in psychology, especially in discussing emotions, means the intrinsic attractiveness/"good"-ness (positive valence) or averseness/"bad"-ness (negative valence) of an event, object, or situation.  The term is also used to characterize and categorize specific emotions. For example, the emotions popularly referred to as "negative", such as anger and fear, have "negative valence". Joy has "positive valence". Positively valenced emotions are evoked by positively valenced events, objects, or situations. The term is also used to describe the hedonic tone of feelings, affect, certain behaviors (for example, approach and avoidance), goal attainment or nonattainment, and conformity with or violation of norms.”
 
--  Wikipedia: Valence (psychology)
 
Well, those  are two useful tools to add the toolbox.
 
We’ve got emotivism , which says that most ethical and value judgments are basically just saying “yay” or “boo” to things.
 
And we’ve got valence , which looks at what the “emotional charge” of a particular word, person, concept, or outcome is.
 
So, to put General Johnson’s statement in context, “destruction” and “revolutionary” used to have the same valence, which was bad  (boo). From my reading, actually, in the past people often felt about the word “revolutionary” more-or-less as strongly as people feel about the word “hatred” today. Which is to say, pretty darn unfavorably.
 
***
 
WEBSTER’S 1828 DICTIONARY
 
Ah, yes, it would be useful to dig into this resource now. It doesn’t actually capture the full concept behind a word, but it can be very useful at times to compare a modern dictionary to the 1828 Webster’s.
 
As it’s from 1828, it’s obviously out of copyright, and some wonderful soul put it up online at  http://webstersdictionary1828.com/  – it can be useful to compare to today’s Merriam-Webster dictionary at  https://www.merriam-webster.com  – and perhaps most telling are the examples chosen to illustrate words.
 
1828 :
Revolutionary
REVOLU'TIONARY, adjective
 
1. Pertaining to a revolution in government; as a revolutionary war;  revolutionary crimes or disasters.
2. Tending to produce a revolution; as revolutionary measures.
 
2017 :
Definition of revolutionary
1
a :  of, relating to, or constituting a revolution • revolutionary war
b :  tending to or promoting revolution
c :  constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change • a revolutionary new product
2
capitalized : of or relating to the American Revolution or to the period in which it occurred
 
Yeah, that’s interesting. 190 years ago, “revolutionary crimes or disasters” was the primary example of the word. That’s been scratched in the modern day, and we’ve got “constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change” as a new definition and “a revolutionary new product” as the dominant example.
 
How very strange and mysterious!
 
How did this happen?
 
***
 
ROUNDHEADS AND CAVALIERS
 
The terrific thing about history is that there’s a whole lot of it .
 
Similar patterns occur and re-occur and recur, ever and over again, settling into natural equilibriums in human affairs.
 
Way back in  Uncommon Virtues #7: Loyalty , we explored some of the fatefully poor decisionmaking during the English Civil war (1642-1651) that led to King Charles I allowing a loyal supporter of his, the Earl of Strafford, to be executed by his enemies. Charles I was executed not long after.
 
We need not analyze all those machinations and poor decisionmaking here – we tap into the English Civil War again for just one thing: insults .
 
Or, specifically, one type of insult – the pejorative.
 
To tap into our two new tools of this chapter, valence and emotivism, a pejorative  is a single word or short phrase that expresses a strong negative valanece , a very strong “booooo!!!” in a single short pithy phrase.
 
During the English Civil War, both sides hit the other with pejoratives. The Royalists got labeled “Cavaliers” by the Parliamentarians, and the Royalists fired back by labeling the Parliamentarians “Roundheads.”
 
Of course, you’ve probably never heard the term “Roundhead” before, and the term “Cavalier” is a fashionable and flashy type term that’s still used. (In fact, the National Basketball Association’s Cleveland Cavaliers won the NBA championship last year.)
 
How odd – two pejoratives, meant to insult and show scorn, and one of them fades from history while the other flips valence to a positive term. Strange! Let’s explore.
 
***
 
CAVALIER AS A PEJORATIVE
 
Wikipedia: Cavalier: Etymology  –
 
“Cavalier derives from the same Latin root as the French word chevalier (as well as the Spanish word caballero), the Vulgar Latin word caballarius, meaning "horseman". Shakespeare used the word cavaleros to describe an overbearing swashbuckler or swaggering gallant in Henry IV, Part 2, in which Shallow says "I'll drink to Master Bardolph, and to all the cavaleros about London". ”
 
And,
 
“ It first appears as a term of reproach and contempt , applied to the followers of King Charles I in June 1642: 1642 (June 10) Propositions of Parlt. in Clarendon v. (1702) I. 504  Several sorts of malignant Men, who were about the King; some whereof, under the name of Cavaliers, without having respect to the Laws of the Land, or any fear either of God or Man, were ready to commit all manner of Outrage and Violence . 1642 Petition Lords & Com. 17 June in Rushw. Coll. III. (1721) I. 631 That your Majesty..would please to dismiss your extraordinary Guards, and the Cavaliers and others of that Quality, who seem to have little Interest or Affection to the publick Good, their Language and Behaviour speaking nothing but Division and War. ”
 
So – a cavalier was a swashbuckler, a swaggering braggart, someone who cared not for laws of God or Man, ready to commit all manner of violences and outrages – hmm, this sounds familiar.
 
***
 
REAPPROPRIATING CAVALIER AS A TITLE OF HONOUR
 
And then –
 
“[King] Charles, in the Answer to the Petition 13 June 1642 speaks of  Cavaliers as a "word by what mistake soever it seemes much in disfavour". It was soon reappropriated (as a title of honour) by the king's party , who in return applied Roundhead to their opponents, and  at the Restoration the court party preserved the name, which survived till the rise of the term Tory . ”
 
Whoa! That is fascinating . “Cavalier” as the predecessor royalist term to Tory . My goodness, this is almost unbelievable. I knew well enough how I’d write this piece before I started, and it still shocks to me as I go deeper into the research.
 
How the heck did that happen?
 
***
 
ROUNDHEAD DOESN’T FLIP VALENCE, THOUGH
 
First,  Roundhead  –
 
“Roundhead was the name given to the supporters of the Parliament of England during the English Civil War. Also known as Parliamentarians, they fought against Charles I of England and his supporters, the Cavaliers or Royalists, who claimed rule by absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings. The goal of the Roundhead party was to give the Parliament supreme control over executive administration. ”
 
And, more importantly –
 
“Some Puritans, but by no means all, wore their hair closely cropped round the head or flat and there was thus an obvious contrast between them and the men of courtly fashion, who wore long ringlets.
 
“ During the war and for a time afterwards, Roundhead was a term of derision—in the [Parliamentarian anti-Royalist] New Model Army it was a punishable offence to call a fellow soldier a Roundhead.  This contrasted with the term "Cavalier" to describe supporters of the Royalist cause.  Cavalier also started out as a pejorative term—the first proponents used it to compare members of the Royalist party with Spanish Caballeros who had abused Dutch Protestants during the reign of Elizabeth I—but unlike Roundhead, Cavalier was embraced by those who were the target of the epithet and used by them to describe themselves. ”
 
***
 
THE THIRD SET OF LESSONS FROM LINGUA FRANCA
 
This brings us to our third set of lessons from Lingua Franca .
 
We have three new tools – the understanding of emotivism (yay/boo theory), the concept of valence (negative or positive associations with a word), and the pejorative (a short word or phrase that encompasses a lot of negative valence).
 
Now, we can come to a big lesson –
 
It’s easier to flip the valence of an emotionally-charged term than it is to take a neutral term to a strong positive or strong negative valence.
 
And specifically –
 
Given that pejoratives start as emotionally negatively charged, they can often be reappropriated into strong positive terms and titles of honor.
 
***
 
PATRIOTS, REBELS, AND REVOLUTIONARIES
 
Incidentally, “revolutionary” is not at all new in this regard.
 
“Patriot” started as a pejorative, which was reappropriated during the American War of Independence as a positive term. (Incidentally, there is a major professional sports team in the American National Football League called the Patriots, and a number of college teams as well.)
 
“Rebel” started as a pejorative, which was reappropriated to a large extent by the Confederates during the American Civil war with the “Rebel Yell.” (Incidentally, there are also a number of college sports teams named the Rebels.)
 
So too with “revolutionary” – what started as a negative term got reappropriated during the various revolutionary wars for a limited time… though its usage often sunk back into disrepute between successful revolutions before finally setting on its current-day valence when the Soviets pushed heavily to reappropriate it as a title of honor in both Russia and everywhere that socialist revolutions were fomented.
 
***
 
WHY DO SOME PEJORATIVES GET REAPPROPRIATED, AND OTHERS NOT?
 
Sometimes pejoratives get reappropriated, and other times they remain pejoratives until fading into disuse.
 
From my readings of history, it tends to be the side with more of a sense of humor  that can reappropriate terms successfully.
 
Typically, this has been the left side of the political spectrum – but not always. The Cavaliers, of course, were to the right of the Roundheads.
 
In the case of the Roundheads, a lot of their military superiority was based on stronger cohesion, self-sacrifice, and a Puritan sense of ethics and duty. They cut their hair short, shunned individualism, and worked to build a fierce and almost Roman-like Army for their times. Indeed, Cromwell’s New Model Army was one of the finest armies that appeared in its era.
 
But this fanatical Puritanism and social conservatism didn’t leave much room for the breezy sense of humor that lets one reappropriate an insult and start calling oneself the insult repeatedly until it becomes a badge of honor.
 
Incidentally and mostly lost to modern history, the Confederates seemed to mostly  have more of a sense of humor than the Unionists – in fact, there were all sorts of strange and cavalier-like characters in the Confederate Camp. There were confederate briefings in the nude, occasionally a Confederate General would launch an armed cavalry raid while riding nude on horseback , and there was a certain gallows humor seemingly ever-present in the Confederate Camp.
 
Meanwhile, to be sure, there was some  joking around in the Union Camp – Lincoln defending Grant’s drinking by saying “let me know what whisky he’s drinking, I’ll send a barrel to my other generals” – but by and large, the Union was the more humorless side. Many of the conscripts on the Union side didn’t want to be in the battle, and so stricter military discipline needed to be enforced.
 
Likewise during the American Revolution, the Patriots had less to lose than the Tories – and were less reliant on prestige, seeming “proper,” and the like – and more able to embrace pejoratives thrown their way like “Patriot” and the song “Yankee Doodle Dandy.”
 
So too with the Communist revolutionaries – who had so little to lose. They could joke and have a laugh over things that the more Christian and more “serious” Westerners could not afford to do as easily.
 
In general, then, a sense of humor can help one side take a linguistic advantage in struggles by reappropriating hostile terms as badges of honor.
 
And to be clear, of course, this doesn’t mean good  or bad ; the more humorless might be the correct or incorrect one in a conflict – while the Union was more humorless than the Confederacy, the Western Allies in World War II certainly had a better sense of humor than the Nazis and thus could call themselves “G.I. Joes” with a laugh, whereas the Germans – reliant on solemnity and absolute discipline – had no such luxuries.
 
So it’s not “good” or bad” to have more humor automatically; rather, it’s just a historical fact that a side of a conflict with a greater sense of humor can more easily reappropriate pejoratives thrown their way.
 
***
 
WELL, THAT’S NICE. NO DOWNSIDES, RIGHT?
 
Actually, unfortunately, there are a few downsides.
 
Once again with Lingua Franca , we are not so concerned with the particular word – “revolutionary” was a pejorative, and it became a badge of honor, eventually being generalized as a nice term for anything new.
 
But –
 
Was there any downsides to being cavalier ? (Yes.)
 
Are there any downsides to patriotism ? (Yes.)
 
Is there any downside to rebellion?  (Yes.)
 
Is there any downside to revolution?  (Yes.)
 
The danger with this “changing the valence of words” thing is that you can lose the underlying valence-neutral conceptual meaning of the word.
 
“These two men are raging up and down this land preaching not construction, but destruction-not reform, but revolution! "
 
We learn, re-learn, and fail to learn repeatedly that revolutions usually go poorly.
 
I say that merely in a historical and statistical sense.
 
“This session of the Reichstag takes place on a date which is full of significance for the German people. Four years have passed since the beginning of that great internal  revolution  which in the meantime has been giving a new aspect to German life. ”
 
--  Calvin College’s German Propaganda Archive: Adolf Hitler’s 30 January 1937 speech, on the fourth anniversary of the Nazi takeover of power

We tend not to refer to Nazism as a revolution – but the Nazis certainly conceived of themselves  as leading a revolution.
 
When former pejoratives are reappropriated to a strong positive valence and a badge of honor, often the original meaning of the word is destroyed and dead space in thinking and language is created where that concept existed.
 
As such, we tend to only invoke successful  and prosperous  and sane  revolutions as “revolutionary” – but revolutionary, of course, just means “as relating to revolution” in its original meaning. That might be an American Revolution, which went well, or a Nazi Revolution, which went very poorly indeed – but given that we think “revolutionary = good” due to valence alone , we become blind to the fact that most political revolutions are bloody affairs that lead to a broken and failed states as a result.
 
Most people don’t think in logic  primarily, don’t disentangle the meanings of words and clarify their own thinking. Emotions  tend to dominate our thinking and views towards certain things.
 
So you get a self-referential chain where “revolutionary = good” and thus, only the (relatively rare) successful and prosperous revolutions are classed as “revolutionary” – this leaves us a little blind and stupid to the fact that most “revolutionary” things go very badly indeed – historically and statistically speaking.
 
***
 
CONCLUDING
 
To conclude, we have a few useful concepts for thinking of the word.
 
*Emotivism, or “yay/boo” theory.
*Valence, or whether a word or concept is “positive” or “negative” in the general feeling towards it.
*Pejoratives, which we can identify as single words or short phrases with a strong negative valence, a strong “boo!” in a single word.
 
We’ve also discerned that pejoratives can be reappropriated by a side with a strong sense of humor into a badge of honor , flipping the term from a strong negative valence to a strong positive valence.
 
And lastly, we take note that the there might be some conceptual thinking ability that has been lost as a result  – where a cavalier, patriot, rebel, or revolutionary becomes just a “good thing” – and thinking stops as a result.
 
All of these are useful tools to understand and navigate the world – and serve as banners of caution to keep thinking . Words are powerful, but dangerous when they map poorly to the world. Constantly clarify one’s thinking, analyze one’s words, and look for the gaps in meaning that need to be re-filled as occasions call for it.
 
Thinking is hard – very hard – but of course, immensely profitable and critical to living a thriving life.