Thursday, May 31, 2012

Dystopia and the destruction of language



I watched the film of Ray Bradbury's 1953 "Fahrenheit 451" a classic from 1966, in it firemen rather than putting out fires, start them, they burn books, in an attempt to introduce equality within "modern" society. Thought and ideas are considered dangerous, the state does everything it can to remove it. It is part of the genre of dystopia books and films, most written in the light of the rise and fall of twentieth century dictators.

At their heart is the redefinition or subjugation of language, actually making language meaningless, it is a "Babel effect", in most of those novels it tends to reduce communication to the superficial and leads to a dis-ease within society that is "cured" by drugs, sex, violence and superficial entertainment. The message of most of these novels that the centre cannot hold, mainly because communication breaks down, words no longer serve a purpose in expressing thought.

It is the manipulation of language, the control of thought that these novelists find most worrying.

Mr Cameron's redefinition of marriage seems to fit into this mould. I asked when he first announced his cunning plan what term we are going to use to define the loving, lifelong, exclusive relationship between members of the opposite sex, in which they hope to procreate and raise children. We need a new term, now "marriage" is to be redefined as a "loving commitment between two people" irrespective of gender, irrespective of place of children. We need a new term because "marriage" now will longer define what the majority of human beings aspire to.

Mr Cameron is robbing our lexicon of a word that expresses something so fundamental to society and human nature that we will have to find a new word that expresses what "marriage" had previously meant.

19 comments:

Physiocrat said...

Orwell's 1984 is about this, amongst many other things. This is Newspeak by other means.

Fr Levi said...

Whatever term chosen will probably be the next pursued ... toleration is insufficient; the goal is approval ... 'thought police' will be needed!

Lynda said...

Manipulate, control language and enforce through contempt, ridicule, isolationism and such laws as "incitement to hatred" laws. The positivism which has effectively taken over in public policy and the Law has been expanded to the point of the State determining the meaning of words based on their aims and forcing people to comply. When objective morality, law and authority are no longer recognised by the State, it gradually abuses its powers to gain absolute, arbitrary power. This phenomenon is most clearly seen in the areas of the killing of the unwanted and defenceless - those not yet born, the old, the sick, the disabled; and in the systematic interference with and manipulation and destruction of the natural institutions of marriage and family, where reside natural authority and morality that limit the State. A machinery, firstly at the unanswerable international levels, then State level are put in place to indoctrinate and enforce through the restriction and persecution of those who protest.

KimHatton said...

The only term left to us is Holy Matrimony. I noticed when filling in a govt questionnaire that the question 'should there be a long time before civil patnerships areconverted into marriage or a short time?' that there was no space to enter they shouldn't be. Just 'Long time' 'Short Time'. It's a done deal then.

Ma Tucker said...

Anything my mother did not like coming into the house was dispatched with a hatchet blow or thrown into the fire. Books, guns, knives ....
I was educated in school to believe that book burning was a sign of ignorance, the act of dictators. Then of course you realise that ideas are very dangerous. Every revolution had it's own pamphlets and books. Every dictatorship has it's own manual. You do a great service to humanity by burning stupid books. I burn childrens' books by the score as an act of maternal love. It is lovely to burn stupid bad books. I would encourage everyone to go through their book collection and burn the bad.

"Mr Cameron is robbing our lexicon of a word that expresses something so fundamental to society and human nature that we will have to find a new word that expresses what "marriage" had previously meant."
Dress it up in the language of equality or rights or whatever you like but the bottom line is PM Cameron, by his action has decided that marriage as an institution will not be supported by the state as a common good. This is the more serious aspect of his decision and not just about the abuse of language.

However, once you accept divorce, contraception, polygamy, deviant sexual behaviour.., his action is a forseeable continued degeneration.

Christ taught us the meaning of marriage and even among his followers there was exasperation, "who can accept this?" Let's not pretend it comes natural to man. It does not. No Catholic society implies no marriage. I think we need to rebuild Catholic society and accept that the state aims to prevent not encourage this rebuilding.

GOR said...

I have noticed that some Irish print media have already dispensed with ‘husband’ and ‘wife’. Articles will speak of “Mary Smith and her partner” or “…the partner of Joe Walsh”…

No indication if the couple is married, unmarried but living together, just good friends, both male, both female - or even if one is a quadruped!

Anonymous said...

On top of this the gay lobby have created a whole new series of words and terms which we previously have never heard of:

- same sex couples
- opposite sex couples
- equal marriage
- civil marriage
- religious marriage
- lesbian nuclear family

The one that really kills me is 'opposite sex couples' as if somehow its one of many options and a minority.

Without a doubt you can tell who's trying to dominate who by looking at which side creates the most amount of new words. It is literally an attempt to redefine reality - their reality.

BJC

Michael Petek said...

How about the term "heterobonding"

The next step will be to force everyone to adopt unisex names (Lesley, Pat, Jo etc.) just to make sure that the last vestiges of gender are erased from public records.

mike hurcum said...

good if they are to re-define marriage and give it another name for this hideous contract , then the Church can justly claim we do marriage and have no need for your sham recintritual

A Straight Choice said...

As well as renaming 'marriage' I think that Mr Cameron should rename his party. Surely the 'Conservative' party is there to conserve something, but obviously not marriage. I suggest that he retain the 'Con' part of the name because this is exactly what he has done. He has conned the electorate because he dared not include this proposal in his manifesto. He will surely get his come-uppance at the next election but will we be exchanging the frying pan for the fire?

nickbris said...

It'snot that long ago when a mixed marriage,one between a Catholic and a Non-Catholic was seen as very unwise and it was said,doomed to failure and would end in tears.

They said the same things about mixed-race marriage and the bigots were jumping up & down and screaming their heads off.

Living together as man & wife was a Mortal Sin,two men or two women living together was perfectly alright and nobody thought a thing about it.

Divorce was virtually impossible for working-class people but separation which became very common after the war brought heaps of shame on the children from stupid teachers..

Civil Marriage will be a civilising factor in the way we treat one another in a more enlightened age.

Enforced celibacy is not a natural state of affairs and may have led to more damage to the Church than any of the mealy-mouthed nonsense that comes out of Politicians mouths.

George said...

I think Kim's idea of bringing the term Holy Matrimony back into common use is interesting. It would surely get the point across that the traditional marriage is distinct from the new "marriage".

I also wonder if we'll come to the point when devout Catholics stop participating in civil marriage ceremonies/procedures? Will Catholics only undergo the Sacrament of Matrimony, but refuse to file paperwork with the state, so as not to proximate their real marriages with the phony sodo-marriages? From what I understand in many European countries the civil marriages are required before the sacrament is performed. (As opposed to the situation in the USA; where I'm fairly certain the sacrament can precede the civil arrangements)

If this caught on (Catholics only getting sacramentaly married and foregoing civil acknowledgements) it would have quite an impact on society. It would send a loud message about marriage. Really it would be the loudest message: we refuse to share civil marriage with you; if pushed, then we will leave. It would totally undermine civil marriages. Imagine if the only "married" people, as recognized by the state, were gays? It would be penultimate act of civil disobedience, only short of actually taking up of arms.

Imagine the Leviathan State's reaction. They'd likely be turned into pseudo-Puritans, demanding that all cohabitants, regardless of sacramental status, be "married" in accordance with civil law.

Pablo the Mexican said...

We have a term.

It is the 'Sacrament of Holy Matrimony"

You can have a marriage between hops, barley, and water; beer.

A marriage between two political ideologies; Parliament.

You can 'Marry' anything together.

Only a man and a woman can be joined in Holy Matrimony.

*yividdsh 22a

Fr Ray Blake said...

Matrimony or marriage is a "good" found in the Natural Law. It becomes a sacrament, "Holy" Matrimony because the two persons engaged in it are by virtue of their baptism "Holy", for a Catholic the are a also necessities of "rite" etc. We are not defending the Sacrament, "Holy Matrimony", that is not in question, it is "natural" marriage/matrimony, on which the sacrament is built, that is at risk.

Supertradmum said...

May I add to the discussion with two posts from April?

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/pondering-language-of-church-state.html

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/language-of-atheistic-revolution.html

John Nolan said...

The best definition of matrimony I have ever read is in the Book of Common Prayer. Schismatics and heretics can get it right, but secular political correctness obviously trumps this. I have said this before, but Cameron's abandonment of Tory values will be his downfall. Backbenchers (including Catholic ones)are starting to speak out.

KimHatton said...

"I have noticed that some Irish print media have already dispensed with ‘husband’ and ‘wife’."

In the past month I've come across questionnaires that allow me to have a partner or be single, be a parent but not a mother or father [It is rumoured that Birth Certificates will simply have Parent 1 and Parent two but this is unlikely. There is already no need to register a father when one registers a birth. In short I can't remember when I was last asked if I had a spouse, husband or wife.

johnf said...

I read that the NHS has removed the term 'father' from a leaflet about pregnancy and parenthood after someone complained that it the term was not inclusive of same sex relationships.

The accepted term now is 'partner'

Fr Richard Aladics said...

Matrimony, whose etymology is two Latin words "mater" and "defend"; thus the meaning of the word matrimony is the defense of the source of life.