I’ve seen this concept described as “magical words”, a few years back. There was a good little video essay series a guy made called “Magical words and how to fight them” illustrating how words like “Capitalism” and “Racism” are not used to refer to consistent concepts, but to establish friend and foe. Shibboleth is a better term
This will sound more antagonistic than I intend it to: Is using pseudo-scientific jargon like "cisgender", or "binary" and "non-binary" not just another form of shibboleth?
I'm not sure that is important with respect to whether it's a form of shibboleth or not.
There are lots of religious concepts that there aren't non-religious ways of referring to. But the verbal act of talking about, e.g. "God" as though God is real still clearly places you within the religious tribe. As Huemer indicated, for a shibboleth to be a shibboleth doesn't require the speaker's conscious understanding that that is what they're doing.
If anything, I'd say that the fact that there's no other word to refer to those ideas makes them *more* likely to be a shibboleth rather than less.
My reasoning here is that if there are multiple ways to refer to an idea, then that is a strong indication that there are multiple conceptual paths which lead to it. If there are multiple paths that lead to an idea, then it is less useful as a means of distinguishing whether a person came to that idea through your *particular* in-group's path.
I'm not sure this is true. To make a comparison, are terms like "Veblen goods" and "production possibility frontier" shibboleths for "the economics community", or are they just words economists use to discuss economic concepts?
I think the difference comes down to what the purpose of using unfamiliar words is. Is it to be exclusionary or to be precise? I think in the case of the economics example I gave, the purpose is clearly precision, even if most people won't know what a PPF is until it's explained to them. Likewise I think "cisgender" is just a term that people came up with because there needed to be something that meant "not transgender". In both cases, I don't think the language is any more exclusionary than it needs to be to facilitate in-group discussion.
It is natural, when you go deep enough into a certain field of ideas, that the language used will be impenetrable to outsiders. This is true of every field, be that economics or trans activism or whatever. I think it's only a problem when people start using language not to communicate thought, but to signal their identity. An example of this signalling would be "TERF", which theoretically has a precise definition but gets thrown around so liberally than in practice the term is meaningless. And note how only one tribe ever uses the word unironically. When you use the word "TERF", you are saying "I'm a trans activist", because gender-critical people would use other terms (like "gender critical", even!) The difference between "cisgender" and "TERF" is that "cisgender" has a useful meaning that can be used by everyone; whereas "TERF" is just a term of abuse.
Social liberalism allows for some forms of self-expression like nontraditional haircolors or facial piercings. I feel like these definitely should count as shibboleths, but they seem to exhibit a degree of self-expression beyond the mere signaling of a political opinion. I would definitely have a problem with a society where all liberals have colorful hair, and hair color would thus be a reliable proxy for someone's political positions. But it feels wrong to ask people to conform, especially when creating that kind of signaling is not their primary intention.
I’ve heard the following justification given for the “always tell your pronouns” thing: it’s supposed to create a more accepting environment for non-cis people. Relying on visual cues to infer gender places undue pressure on transgender people to pass, and asking “does anyone have non-standard pronouns here” unduly singles people out. So the only solution is to mandate it as a requirement for everyone whenever they make an introduction.
Transgender people are under one thousandth of the population, so it doesn't make sense to me that we have to all do this thing every time we meet anyone, just for the one in a thousand times when it might make some person slightly more comfortable. It's sort of like the idea that everyone should report on all the allergies that they don't have when they order food in a restaurant, so that the people with allergies won't feel singled out.
It's also really doubtful that it makes any difference even for that one in a thousand people. They're still going to stand out by the fact that they announce pronouns that don't match their outward appearance.
If everyone in the US read this article, how likely is it that anything would change? I suspect that few of those engaging in this behavior would feel they ought to change.
I also wonder if there are not other sorts of shibboleths we are accustomed to for other groups. The way we dress, even if fairly conventional, serves a similar purpose. Fashion is a shibboleth. When does a shibboleth turn into a custom or a tradition?
Humor seems closely adjacent to this. The non-woke accuse the woke of being rather humorless, and of having ruined TV comedy. Colbert was funny back when he played a character that parodied the right. But then he took of the mask and became a scold. Or do the woke still think he is funny?
The ideologues who want to signal their affiliation would keep repeating the shibboleths. But perhaps a few people who didn't want to politicize discussions and didn't realize they were doing that would stop.
You can't avoid wearing some clothing. (You'll get arrested if you don't!) But what you can do is avoid wearing clothing that calls particular attention to your political differences from others -- e.g., you don't need to wear "MAGA" or "BLM" hats.
I think "virtue signaling" is mostly a misnomer for group affiliation signaling. I.e., when people say these things, they're not really causing other people to think that they're virtuous, so much as causing others to think that they belong to a particular faction of society. E.g., when I look at that video, I don't come to believe that the AMPAS is full of morally virtuous people; I just come to think that it is full of leftists.
Thanks for focusing on shibboleths. It's getting a bit ridiculous and I was wondering why it was so important to many people. But tribalism is the answer. Now it makes sense. And it is still ridiculous.
I think this is one of my favorite articles that you've written--it's very true!
I’ve seen this concept described as “magical words”, a few years back. There was a good little video essay series a guy made called “Magical words and how to fight them” illustrating how words like “Capitalism” and “Racism” are not used to refer to consistent concepts, but to establish friend and foe. Shibboleth is a better term
This will sound more antagonistic than I intend it to: Is using pseudo-scientific jargon like "cisgender", or "binary" and "non-binary" not just another form of shibboleth?
I don't think so particularly, since there's no other word to refer to those ideas.
It's not the same as gender-conforming people saying "my pronouns are..." for woke kudos.
I'm not sure that is important with respect to whether it's a form of shibboleth or not.
There are lots of religious concepts that there aren't non-religious ways of referring to. But the verbal act of talking about, e.g. "God" as though God is real still clearly places you within the religious tribe. As Huemer indicated, for a shibboleth to be a shibboleth doesn't require the speaker's conscious understanding that that is what they're doing.
If anything, I'd say that the fact that there's no other word to refer to those ideas makes them *more* likely to be a shibboleth rather than less.
My reasoning here is that if there are multiple ways to refer to an idea, then that is a strong indication that there are multiple conceptual paths which lead to it. If there are multiple paths that lead to an idea, then it is less useful as a means of distinguishing whether a person came to that idea through your *particular* in-group's path.
I'm not sure this is true. To make a comparison, are terms like "Veblen goods" and "production possibility frontier" shibboleths for "the economics community", or are they just words economists use to discuss economic concepts?
I think the difference comes down to what the purpose of using unfamiliar words is. Is it to be exclusionary or to be precise? I think in the case of the economics example I gave, the purpose is clearly precision, even if most people won't know what a PPF is until it's explained to them. Likewise I think "cisgender" is just a term that people came up with because there needed to be something that meant "not transgender". In both cases, I don't think the language is any more exclusionary than it needs to be to facilitate in-group discussion.
It is natural, when you go deep enough into a certain field of ideas, that the language used will be impenetrable to outsiders. This is true of every field, be that economics or trans activism or whatever. I think it's only a problem when people start using language not to communicate thought, but to signal their identity. An example of this signalling would be "TERF", which theoretically has a precise definition but gets thrown around so liberally than in practice the term is meaningless. And note how only one tribe ever uses the word unironically. When you use the word "TERF", you are saying "I'm a trans activist", because gender-critical people would use other terms (like "gender critical", even!) The difference between "cisgender" and "TERF" is that "cisgender" has a useful meaning that can be used by everyone; whereas "TERF" is just a term of abuse.
Social liberalism allows for some forms of self-expression like nontraditional haircolors or facial piercings. I feel like these definitely should count as shibboleths, but they seem to exhibit a degree of self-expression beyond the mere signaling of a political opinion. I would definitely have a problem with a society where all liberals have colorful hair, and hair color would thus be a reliable proxy for someone's political positions. But it feels wrong to ask people to conform, especially when creating that kind of signaling is not their primary intention.
I’ve heard the following justification given for the “always tell your pronouns” thing: it’s supposed to create a more accepting environment for non-cis people. Relying on visual cues to infer gender places undue pressure on transgender people to pass, and asking “does anyone have non-standard pronouns here” unduly singles people out. So the only solution is to mandate it as a requirement for everyone whenever they make an introduction.
What do you think of this rationale?
Transgender people are under one thousandth of the population, so it doesn't make sense to me that we have to all do this thing every time we meet anyone, just for the one in a thousand times when it might make some person slightly more comfortable. It's sort of like the idea that everyone should report on all the allergies that they don't have when they order food in a restaurant, so that the people with allergies won't feel singled out.
It's also really doubtful that it makes any difference even for that one in a thousand people. They're still going to stand out by the fact that they announce pronouns that don't match their outward appearance.
I've read the following troll-y, but not wholly without merit, criticism of mandatory pronoun declarations:
It forces closeted transgender people to either out themselves or misgender themselves.
If everyone in the US read this article, how likely is it that anything would change? I suspect that few of those engaging in this behavior would feel they ought to change.
I also wonder if there are not other sorts of shibboleths we are accustomed to for other groups. The way we dress, even if fairly conventional, serves a similar purpose. Fashion is a shibboleth. When does a shibboleth turn into a custom or a tradition?
Humor seems closely adjacent to this. The non-woke accuse the woke of being rather humorless, and of having ruined TV comedy. Colbert was funny back when he played a character that parodied the right. But then he took of the mask and became a scold. Or do the woke still think he is funny?
The ideologues who want to signal their affiliation would keep repeating the shibboleths. But perhaps a few people who didn't want to politicize discussions and didn't realize they were doing that would stop.
You can't avoid wearing some clothing. (You'll get arrested if you don't!) But what you can do is avoid wearing clothing that calls particular attention to your political differences from others -- e.g., you don't need to wear "MAGA" or "BLM" hats.
Would you say that the shibboleth used by Mr. Runningwater was also a form of virtue signaling?
I think "virtue signaling" is mostly a misnomer for group affiliation signaling. I.e., when people say these things, they're not really causing other people to think that they're virtuous, so much as causing others to think that they belong to a particular faction of society. E.g., when I look at that video, I don't come to believe that the AMPAS is full of morally virtuous people; I just come to think that it is full of leftists.
OTOH, for many engaged in the activity, that is a distinction without a difference. Yay in group, we're the best!
https://open.substack.com/pub/sinatana/p/the-mask-of-all-skams?utm_source=direct&r=zickz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I’ve had so many preach the topics du jour to me lately through an ensign on their temple...loved your points
Thanks for focusing on shibboleths. It's getting a bit ridiculous and I was wondering why it was so important to many people. But tribalism is the answer. Now it makes sense. And it is still ridiculous.