It has long been fashionable in American political discourse to denounce as “Puritanical” any viewpoint that on its face seems to limit human pleasure. If someone suggests that alcohol taxes be raised for example, the P word will usually be flung at him or her to induce shamed silence. Perhaps it is true that if you are going to be rude to another person, being ignorant at the same time doesn’t make things much worse, but nonetheless, consider the historical inaccuracy of the P word insult. As I have discussed before, the Puritans opposed prohibition of alcohol because they didn’t want to deny people the fun of drinking (They also celebrated mutual sexual pleasure as an essential part of marriage).
“I have no problem with sex workers making a living in their chosen way. The only reason American cities aren’t full of streetwalkers is because of our sexually repressive Victorian culture”. So declared a cultural sophisticate at a swish cocktail party which your humble scribe attended. Having no wish to do her an injury, I did not point out that tens of thousands of prostitutes walked the streets of Victorian London. But my forbearance doesn’t make her historical comparison less naive.
Lest my plaint be interpreted as mere professorial pettifogging, let me make clear why I defend the humanity of The Puritans and Victorians. It’s not for them. They’ve joined the choir invisible and will therefore not be offended by the serried slanders of what Chesterton called the arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. My concern is with the living.
When someone tries to silence a living person, for example by calling a feminist who objects to violent pornography a “sex-hating Puritan”, they are committing a sin not just against history but against humanity. Just as the accuser is degrading the past, they are also degrading the present. A Puritan then and an anti-porn feminist today could like sex just fine, because human beings rarely conform to cardboard stereotypes. Waking up to the reality that the Puritans, the Victorians and every other group of people who have ever lived were complex, contradictory, full-blooded human beings can help one better appreciate that the same is true of the people who live on the planet today.
To put it more bluntly: There has never been a time when human beings weren’t human. Deal with it.
My historical hero, Henry Marten was a Puritan. After the English monarchy was restored in 1660, he spent the rest of his life under house arrest. With his girlfriend, to whom he was not married.
Excellent post. Thank you.
One of the historians who have debunked the Lytton Strachey view of Victorian sexuality was the late Roy Porter.
The issue has become mixed up with gender inequality. Almost all Victorians, and Puritans before them, did if course believe in that, as in racial inequality. Science and the Bible concurred on both, didn’t they? The idea that (bourgeois) women were asexual, if it was held at all, coexisted with the older view that women were inferior because they were ragingly sexual and needed a firm patriarchal hand to control them.
I think it was Steven Marcus in The Other Victorians who made the point that a more restrictive attitude to sex was sometimes felt to be positively liberating by lower class Victorian women, as it held men to a higher standard than the previous culture of casual exploitation (very evident in say, Fielding).
“To put it more bluntly: There has never been a time when human beings weren’t human. Deal with it.”
To put it even more bluntly, there has never been a time when the humanity of human beings was not a problem so grave and so immediate that its very dimensions could not even be candidly acknowledged. That is why we can’t deal with it, but have always retreated into shock, denial, and paralysis.
Like it or not, the words “puritanical” and “Victorian” have developed their own definitions. I would assume that when someone calls something “puritanical,” they are not specifically referring to Puritans, but the meaning of the word “puritanical.”
From Merriam-Webster:
puritanical: : very strict especially concerning morals and religion : of, relating to, or characterized by a rigid morality
Victorian : typical of the moral standards, attitudes, or conduct of the age of Victoria especially when considered stuffy, prudish, or hypocritical
And certainly, being very strict in application of moral standards doesn’t mean not enjoying sexual pleasure, But again, I would imagine in most cases when “puritanical” or “Victorian” is invoked it, in fact, refers to someone having particular moral views regarding the manner in which OTHERS enjoy their sexual pleasure.
“sex-hating Puritan” is actually several concepts rolled into one, which, in fact, kind of rebuts your argument that “puritanical” is being misused. After all, by adding the adjective “sex-hating,” they’re clearly referring to a particular subset of Puritans that are “sex-hating” thereby acknowledging that others are not.
Like it or not, the words “puritanical†and “Victorian†have developed their own definitions. I would assume that when someone calls something “puritanical,†they are not specifically referring to Puritans, but the meaning of the word “puritanical.â€
Exactly. This is not a public policy post, it’s a post insisting on linguistic prescriptivism in the face of established usage.
At this point in history, we have to have a word for people who are overzealous in their desire to regulate the conduct of others on the basis of pure morality concerns. The word we use is “puritan”. It doesn’t matter if it is a “correct” description of the Puritans or not.
This is not a public policy post, it’s a post insisting on linguistic prescriptivism in the face of established usage.
You are correct on the first part, but not the second. It’s a post about honoring the humanity of other human beings, living or dead.
So we can’t use Philistine to mean someone who is intellectually incurious either? We can’t use Luddite to refer to people who resist technological advance?
The language is full of these sorts of words. Because language is democratic- whatever usage a majority approves in a reasonably formal register becomes a correct usage. There’s nothing you really can do about it.
It’s a post about honoring the humanity of other human beings, living or dead.
Language Log is a popular site devoted to language debates if that is what interests you.
Keith, I’m not the one who posted on this blog a linguistic complaint based on a criterion that, if taken seriously, would eliminate hundreds of useful words from the English language (and which actually can’t be taken seriously because language resists efforts of commentators to control it through these sorts of efforts).
If you think this debate was better suited for language log, you should have guest posted there.
I’m afraid you are missing the point entirely. The post was not about language it was about how human beings view each other and treat each other. If you don’t like the message of it, okay.
I addressed the substance below. We properly condemn Puritanism (as currently defined) because it is a character fault to want to dictate the private choices of others.
The word- whether a slur on the actual Puritans or not- accurately describes a mindset that both exists and is worthy of condemnation. Indeed, Puritanism in its more extreme forms is a rejection of the concept of a free society.
The American public is therefore correct to use this wonderful word and to condemn the mindset and worldview it stands for.
As I said, the post is about honoring the humanity of other human beings. If you don’t like the message of it, okay.
We can’t use Luddite to refer to people who resist technological advance?
Obviously you can, but it perpetuates a lie about who the Luddites were, what they wanted, and what they achieved. And it’s a slur. You can, of course, use it if you wish. I’m seldom a prescriptivist, either. But you shouldn’t. That lie is very useful to powerful people today, and I find it irresponsible to help them. That’s all aside from the question of fidelity to the truth, and aside from Keith’s point, especially as it refers to the defenseless dead.
The language is full of these sorts of words. Because language is democratic whatever usage a majority approves in a reasonably formal register becomes a correct usage. There’s nothing you really can do about it.
You assume that linguistics has value but history has none.
Michael, what about Philistine?
You can’t cleanse language of every word that ever described a group inaccurately.
I use Luddite because it has a useful meaning. If it offends you, maybe you should grow a thicker skin.
The primary use I know for the word Luddite is to lie to people. It’s a lie that the original Luddites were anti-technology. They smashed the looms because the looms were being used to destroy their way of life and make them the earliest victims of the Industrial Revolution, not because they didn’t like the technology. It is usually a lie when it is used today, as it’s typically used to describe people who object to technology being used against their interests rather than people who object to technology per se.
tl;dr? Try this: I’d find it useful to use words deceptively, too, if my conscience would allow it.
It clearly does matter, if people know the word puritan means prudish, and then assume that Puritans were prudish when this is false. Unless cultivating false beliefs doesn’t matter, of course.
Well, every time you eat a Hamburger and French Fries you cultivate false beliefs too.
Society has 99 problems and this ain’t one.
the existence of other problems doesn’t make minor problems not problems. Nice fallacy though.
So declared a cultural sophisticate at a swish cocktail party which your humble scribe attended.
Courtesy of An American’s Guide to Canada: “Swish - A kind of liquor made from putting water into barrels that have previously held some sort of alcohol (whisky, brandy, whatever) and letting the alcohol leach out of the wood. Drunk by university students who like to go blind.”
Be careful out there, Keith.
Can you please write in a larger font? Having trouble making out the letters…
This is more commonly known as Screech. Supposedly from the sound one makes when drinking it.
Screech is a very high-proof rum usually associated with Newfoundland. Drinking it is alleged to give you delusions of Gander.
Modernism: the fallacy that the current age has escaped the bonds of history.
That painting is curious, by the way: it appears to be a circa 1890-1900 portrayal of people wearing fashions of the 1830s and sitting on a piece of upholstered furniture in the style of about 1900.
@Betsy: I do love your quote.
The painting is “A Conquest” also known as “A Heart for a Rose”. John Lavery painted it in 1882. I saw it in Glasgow and was enchanted.
“A Heart for a Rose”. Ah. That answers my question: who is conquering who?
-TP
The painting certainly looks Victorian, but what’s that ipod-charger-cord-looking wire dangling from the gentleman’s right boot???
It’s a riding whip
Ah, so that’s what that was. I thought he was just happy to see her! Next you’ll tell me she’s not actually about to take his temperature.
It is true that words like “Victorian” or “Puritan” are a bit unfair. But the concept remains valid-the personality type is very real. Fortunately, we have the words that express the concept, without doing violence to history. “Prude” is one. I prefer the Australian import: “wowser.”
Two great aphorisms: “To put it more bluntly: There has never been a time when human beings weren’t human. Deal with it.” and “Modernism: the fallacy that the current age has escaped the bonds of history.”
“Machiavellian” joins “”puritanical” and “Victorian” in escaping the historical truth of its referent. Machiavelli was among other things a lover of freedom, jailed and I think even tortured for his political views.
Aw, only a bunch of crybabies consider the strappado to be “torture.”
It is amusing that, in practice, Niccolo Machiavelli was one of the least Machiavellian of individuals.
Just to add — the Puritans didn’t call themselves Puritans. It was a pejorative applied against Protestants that found the Church of England too Catholic — don’t know when it began to refer to sex and social behavior as opposed to theology. Anyway, it was inaccurate way back when. Part of dealing with humans being human, I guess, is that they invent inaccurate pejoratives when they encounter groups they don’t particularly like.
Keith, I’m afraid I agree strongly with Pete Guither and Ebenezer Scrooge above that you’re missing the point about the word “Puritan” (often used with lower case). It is *not intended as a historical referent* but has now become the generic label for someone who enjoys restricting others’ pleasure. I’m the first to want to get the actual Puritans right (chris y is correct; and one prominent supporter of the so-called Puritan or Presbyterian faction was the most notorious pimp in London). But people who call a position puritan-by the way, I almost never hear “Victorian” anymore-are simply adapting to the fact that “blue-nose” and Scrooge’s favorite and mine, “wowser,” are not common terms in contemporary American English. “Prude” is, I guess, but so is “puritan.” “Deal with it.”
It really doesn’t make any sense to call this either a historical mistake or some sort of libel, because no referent to the historical group is intended. And unlike the case in which people use a live ethnic label for a negative quality (“Jew someone down,” “Indian giver”), the unthinking use in this case of what was originally a slur attached to a group of people cannot be objected to as likely to foster social disrespect or discrimination, because the Puritans no longer exist. (Do you also have a beef against “barbaric”?)
Your desire to rehabilitate the Puritans and Victorians seems to me a distraction from your real point: that people who use the label intend to, and often do, shut down debate regarding regulating (not prohibiting) a certain behavior when there might in fact be a good case for doing so. That point is valid. But it has nothing to do with whether one uses, or misuses, a label that once named a group. The problem was identical when the Kiwi millionaire Bob Jones wrote a book “Wowser Whacking” attacking, among other things, tobacco regulation. (He lost.)
Hi Andy — It was never true, not then or now, that people should be de-humanized by labels. It isn’t fair to the people in the past, or in the present. When you recognize that these labels don’t apply to their historical referent (because there is no historical referent, there cannot be because humans beings have always been human) it should lead I think to a realization that they don’t really apply now, i.e., people who are being dehumanized today don’t deserve it either, no one does.
I recognize that some may feel that no, a certain portion of people then and now do deserve to have their humanity denied, for whatever reason. I’m not naive that I can stop that: There’s a world of hatred out there obviously. But that doesn’t mean I can’t disagree with the dehumanization or suggest a different way for human beings to treat each other.
I guess I just don’t understand the part of your claim where you portray a label like puritan (or wowser) as dehumanizing. I suppose all political labels are an appeal to the kind of passions we should try to avoid in favor of using sweet reason all the time. But that’s a high standard, and politics would grow pretty silent pretty quickly if we placed a ban on any statement containing an unfavorable label of an opponent. As labels go, puritan or wowser seems far less virulent than many.
Part of this is that I don’t think it’s actually very common to label proponents of porn regulation as hating sex in their own lives. (I think that the Anonymous of December 12 at 2 p.m. got this right: “The real significance of the claim that someone is a ‘puritan’ is that they either derive pleasure from the regulation of *the private conduct of others*…”) The claim, which strikes me as easily exaggerated but sometimes fair comment and not automatically false, is that many people have trouble realizing that modes of pleasure that are unfamiliar or distasteful to themselves may, *when experienced by other people constituted differently from themselves,* be similar in kind to the modes of pleasure that they themselves enjoy.
Thomas Nagel has published some good work on this: Many people think it’s harmless to regulate, for example, unfamiliar sexual practices because they imagine *themselves* engaging in those practices (e.g. a straight man imaginines how it would feel *for him* to have sex with a man), and conclude too much from the fact that they would find those practices disgusting. They find it difficult to imagine how such acts feel *to the people who actually find them natural and enjoyable.* This failure of imagination is what people who use labels like wowser are driving at. It strikes me as a very common failure, and as somethign that commonly produces more regulation than ought in fact to occur. And I don’t think it’s dehumanizing to attribute this vice to proponents of moral regulation. In fact, I think that the prospect of such attribution has the good effect of forcing people to think very hard-*as we should*-when proposing regulation of things that others enjoy.
Andy - I don’t find that distinction between different ways of shutting other people down important. That is, it’s dehumanizing to say to a feminist who doesn’t like porn that she hates the thought of other people having sex when in truth there is nothing inconsistent with liking sex in general (by anyone) and thinking that pornography degrades women. To admit that possibility is only to accept that an anti-porn feminist could be as human as the next human and not a cardboard stereotype. So no matter which way the attack is intended (She hates sex in her own life or she hates other people being happy in their sex lives) I don’t see it as humanizing.
Why don’t you answer Andrew’s question about “barbaric”?
And you are also trying to make a procedural objection do substantive work. Even if you were right about the word puritan, the desire to override other people’s choices is still arrogant and antithetical to freedom. We just need another word to strongly condemn it.
And you are also trying to make a procedural objection do substantive work.
You mistake me as trying to persuade you of something. I really like what I expressed in the post and I am happy many people resonated with it. If you didn’t, that’s not something in my view that needs to be settled in argument over whether you should’ve liked it VERSUS I shouldn’t have written it. It’s a big world with lots of diverse opinions in it (and lots of other people to read if what I write here doesn’t resonate with you).
My own hobby-horse along these lines is “Potemkin village”, denoting a sham, stage-set presentation to a ruler or the media to create a false impression of a real achievement. Catherine the Great appointed her ex-lover Count Grigori Potemkin as viceroy of the vast Ukraine, newly conquered from the Turks; a great responsibility. A few years later she went on a triumphal tour. On her return Potemkin’s enemies in St. Petersburg put about the story that Potemkin had shown her such bogus villages. Maybe he had gilded the lily, as you and Catherine would expect; but his achievements were great, including the creation of Sebastopol as a naval base. The lie has passed into the general culture, so I’m complaining against the wind.
The implication that Potemkin got the job because he was good in bed is ridiculous. Catherine went through a good number of handsome, brainless young officers, but she did not give them positions of responsibility as rewards. Potemkin was a political confidant and friend long after their sexual relationship ended.
You sank my battleship!!
You mean Potemkin villages were the real Rock Ridge?