Fair’s Fair… I Guess.

Because I have a professional interest in rhetoric and a personal interest in conservatism, I’ve read a fair amount of Richard M. Weaver. I think one of his strengths is coming up with terminology to describe concepts that everyone understands on some level — in particular here, I’m thinking of his idea of “God-terms” (e.g., freedom, justice) and “Devil-Terms” (racist, Nazi), expressions that are actually intended as ways of shutting off debate (see also the corollaries to Godwin’s Law). When I was in grad school, a girlfriend of mine was a member of a group called “Students for Peace and Justice.” I asked her if there were any groups called “Students for War and Iniquity.” We broke up not long after that.)

Anyway, one such God-term is fairness. Like y’all, I’ve noticed that folks on both the Left and Right are fond of the term, while each decries the other side’s usage. I tend to see the Left’s use of the term as a cover for class envy, and folks on the Left tend to see the right’s use as a sort of cover for what they call Social Darwinism (a term whose own meaning has changed over the decades), or what used to be called “Root, hog, or die.” But both sides will cheerfully claim the mantle of fairness for their goals. As the two definitions don’t really seem compatible, it seems like somebody’s misusing the word. An interesting question (to me, anyway) becomes not so much the definition the rhetor is using (as the emotional impact of the God-term supersedes the denotation, in many cases), but the definition held by the rhetor’s audience. The question then becomes one of which side is using the word fair in a counterintuitive (not to say disingenuous) manner for the larger audience.

Well, Legal Insurrection hips us to a British survey (reported by the Telegraph) that explores this very question:

The quite unequivocal reply that was received (with breathtakingly enormous majorities in some forms) came as no surprise to this column. To most voters, fairness does not mean an equal distribution of resources and wealth, or even a redistribution of these things according to need. It means, as the report’s title – “Just Deserts” – implies, that people get what they deserve. And what is deserved, the respondents made clear, refers to that which is achieved by effort, talent or dedication to duty: in other words, earned on merit.

The Telegraph‘s report goes on to note that the respondents to the poll were, in fact, pretty hardcore:

Those who responded to this poll seemed to take a quite startlingly hard line on the question of how much the presence of children should be taken into account by the welfare state. A majority said, for example, that there should be no additional child benefit paid after the third child, and they were only lukewarm on the subject of tax breaks for families with children (although they certainly prefer tax reliefs to cash benefits).

Bear in mind, this is Britain we’re discussing, a nation whose academics suggested that the greatest 20th-Century prime minister wasn’t Churchill, but Clement Attlee, architect of the British welfare state. Certainly it’s a nation that has been perceived as being to the left of the U.S.. If this is what they see as fair, what does that mean for the word as used here in the States? Likewise, once we attempt to get past the fog of the God-term, what does that mean for the rhetoric of both the Left and Right in our current discourse? Which side is speaking the language its audience uses, and which side appears to do that while meaning something altogether different?

About profmondo

Dad, husband, mostly free individual, medievalist, writer, and drummer. "Gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche."
This entry was posted in Culture, Education, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Fair’s Fair… I Guess.

  1. Pingback: There’s “Fair,” and then there’s “Fair”

  2. dave schutz says:

    So, the story is that there was a trough urinal in the House of Commons, and shortly after displacing Churchill as PM, Atlee was there and Churchill came in and went way down to the furthest end of the trough. And Atlee said, “Shy, are we, Winston?” and Churchill said, “Clement, in my experience, when you see something which is large, and works well, you try and nationalize it!”

  3. Fudd says:

    BTW, how’d that Peace and Justice thing work out for your ex?

  4. Pingback: A Little Late to the Party… | Professor Mondo

  5. Pingback: Fairness Redux | Professor Mondo

Leave a Reply to Fudd Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s