Words can be stretched, or
even abused, in the service of a self-serving ideology that is utterly unfair
to other people as well as stubborn facts. Nietzsche theorized that ideas are
the stuff of instinctual urges tussling for supremacy in the human mind. Against
Kant’s love of the fixed laws of reason for their own sake, I submit that Nietzsche’s
tussle of ideas can bend even the laws of reason, like the gravity of large masses
can bend space (and thus light) and time. The basic framework of the universe
is not static. Neither, I believe, are the rules of reason, and reasoning
itself. Intense power, such as that of an ideology, can warp both the basic
framework and process of reason. This can explain why ideologues can be seen by
others to suffer from cognitive dissidence: holding two contradictory beliefs
at the same time. A defense mechanism of ideology can block awareness of one of
the two. Self-serving applications of the word, national, is a case in point.
An article touting small towns
in the U.S. as worthy tourist attractions stresses the importance of “small
towns and communities that have long formed the backbone of the nation.”[1]
The article features the best small town in every U.S. state, though the
importance of small towns is in terms of the nation. The gravity of so much
consolidated power at the level of the Union may be behind the bending of the
spotlight from the state to the federal level. The towns were selected on the state level and yet they form the
backbone of the nation. Cognitive dissidence is present in the tension here.
Indeed, the term national can apply
to the states, as the U.S., like the E.U., sports a federal system of dual
sovereignty. In both empire-level unions[2],
the member-states have retained some governmental sovereignty as well as any
residual not delegated to the federal level. Also in both unions, cultural and
even political-ideological differences exist from state to state. The U.S.
state of Vermont differs significantly from the state of Kansas, for example.
The E.U. state of Denmark differs significantly from the state of Spain. An
empire must have many culturally distinct states (or kingdoms,
historically).
It follows that the United
Kingdom is not itself an empire. Formerly an empire and later a state in the
E.U., the UK post-secession (not post-divorce,
as the UK and the E.U. are not equivalent because the UK was a state in the
E.U.). Culturally, the Scottish, Welsh, and English regions (and Northern
Ireland, whose residents tend to identify themselves as English culturally) are
much more similar than are the E.U. states of Greece and Sweden. In fact, were
the regions of the UK really nations, they would have been separate E.U.
states. Those regions only have delegated power in the UK, and are thus not
semi-sovereign, so the regions are not nations. Indeed, the British Parliament
could stop the Scottish region, for example, from even applying for E.U.
statehood, whether before or after the secession.
Even so, the British refer to
their regions as nations. For example, the Church of Scotland “is a
Presbyterian church and recognizes only Jesus Christ as ‘King and Head of the
Church’,” according to the Royal Family’s website.[3]
If this sounds familiar, this may be because Israel before the kings recognized
Yahweh as its sole ruler (assuming this is a historical fact used in the faith
narrative). Yet someone had to interpret Yahweh’s will. Similarly, according to
CNN, the Scottish Church is “entirely self-governing, represented at the local
level by ‘kirk sessions’ and at a national level by the General Assembly.”[4]
The Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is
a human being. The Queen annually appoints someone to “maintain the
relationship between the State and the Church,” according to the Royal website
in early 2020.[5]
Although occupants have been from the Scottish region, members of the royal
family have also been appointed. In January 2020, the Queen appointed her
grandson, William. Hence the Crown is over the Church of Scotland, albeit not
as explicitly as in the case of the Church of England. This contradicts the
self-governing plank of the Scottish Church, and, more to the point, the claim
that the General Assembly is on “a national level,” meaning that Scotland is a
nation.
Here, cognitive dissidence and
a warping not only of the word national, but also of reasoning itself, can be
seen. In the relation between Church and State, the latter refers here to the
UK rather than Scotland, and yet the latter is “a national level.” The warping
of reasoning itself and the law of reason that mandates that equivalents are
equivalent are evident in the further contention that the semi-sovereign U.S.
states are not nations while Scotland is. Two contradictory uses of the same
word violate the logic of equivalence and invoke cognitive dissidence. In short,
the British should not apply national to
both Scotland and the United States. That this is done suggests the underlying
presence of a questionable motive.
Moreover, Europeans and even
Americans typically treat an E.U. state as equivalent to the entire American
union rather than to a member-state therein.[6]
I suspect that few Americans even realize how the language is being used, and why. In the case of the Europeans, the
ideology seems to involve a self-serving overstatement of the importance of a
former or current E.U. state and a diminishment of an empire-level union
elsewhere. Power can fuel both the self-aggrandizement and passive aggression.
In fact, the latter is definitely present in angry reactions against the few
people who try to restore the application of equivalence as if doing so is
irrational and haughty! Such is the power of ideological defense-mechanisms
manifesting in the political domain.
Although I resist the
linguistic reductionism in 20th century analytical philosophy (e.g.,
Wittgenstein’s claim that no awareness of an object can precede a word being
given to that object), I readily admit that human beings can use language in
order to get pleasure from having more power. The fixity of the rules of grammar
and of the definitions of words can be mere parchment constraints up against
the instinctual urge for power.
[1]
Lissa Poirot, “Every
U.S. State’s Best Small Town,” Far
& Wide, January 10, 2020 (accessed January 26, 2020).
[3]
Amir Vera, “Queen
Appoints Prince William to New Role amid Royal Shakeup,” CNN.Com, January
25, 2020.
[4] Ibid.
[5]
Ibid.
