At Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr raises an interesting point about what he calls “meaning assignment.” For years, I’ve challenged the morphing of definitions, from rape to sex, from what were once clearly defined words into vagaries that enable everyone to claim their own idiosyncratic definition. It makes communication rather difficult when we use the same words but either use our personal definition or untether them from any cogent definition. For many, vibes have replaced meaning, and even if they can’t quite offer a definition for their use of a word, they can justify their use by what they claim to be its vibe. Who can argue against a vibe?
But Orin questions the opposite direction, whether others assigning meaning to a word or phrase somehow imputes that meaning to its speaker. Forget Humpty Dumpty, and consider whether the listener is master rather than the speaker.
The Alito flags raise one recent example, but I see this as a recurring dynamic. What does “from the river to the sea” mean? What is “critical race theory”? What does “all lives matter” mean? A surprising amount of politics ends up being channeled through contested meanings of used phrases and symbols.
I’m sure there’s an academic phrase that already describes this. But in the absence of knowing it, I will call this the strange politics of meaning assignment. Here’s the idea. In a polarized political environment with little communication between the two sides, you can easily rile up your side by providing an uncharitable interpretation to the other side’s symbols or phrases. This is what that means, you announce. Now you can see the real them. Finally, they are saying the quiet part out loud. This is who they are.
While he’s certainly right that adversaries in our polarized society will impute an “uncharitable interpretation to the other side’s symbols or phrases,” is the problem that it may not reflect the speakers’ or users’ intended meaning?
Sometimes that assigned meaning is correct, and being uncharitable is just being accurate. In that case, fair enough. But, often enough to matter, meaning might be contested. A particular symbol or phrase may have different meanings to different people. A particular use may be innocuous or in a context where the meaning is uncertain. In that setting, assignment of meaning can cause a lot of trouble. It can effectively create a meaning that isn’t what those who use that symbol or phrase mean.
What was intended by Justice Alito’s wife flying the American flag upside down? Many point out that it’s a distress symbol, but that wasn’t Alito’s explanation. As for the Heaven flag, many point out that it’s a historical flag that goes back to the revolution. But Alito never said that. At the same time, Alito knew that it was improper, not to mention stupid, to invite questions as to his engaging in politics that would be viewed as compromising his impartiality. Does the meaning matter? Does ascribing meaning to the flags change the fact that a Supreme Court justice should hold himself above the political fray? And when his spouse’s conduct is indistinguishable from his, say with a flagpole at their mutual home, should his spouse find a different way to express her views that won’t taint her husband, the justice?
As for Orin’s other example, the phrase “from the river to the sea,” it had a definitive meaning long before it was heard on American college campuses. Granted, many of the chanters might be unaware of its meaning, just as they’re unaware of what river and what sea it’s talking about, and they’re just being part of the tribe by regurgitating the sounds the rest of their friends are making. But do they get to claim some other meaning, as Rashida Tlaib claimed it was a chant of peace?
From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate. My work and advocacy is always centered in justice and dignity for all people no matter faith or ethnicity.
Do we each get to reinvent the meaning of whatever we say or do, or are there meanings and definitions that people should be held to if they choose to use a symbol or phrase? And if people are unaware of them when they use the symbol or phrase, does that absolve them of responsibility for doing so without first taking responsibility for their actions?
To Orin’s point, it’s no different if meaning is assigned by others to a person’s use of a phrase or symbol, whether charitably or otherwise. In some instances, there are legitimate questions as to what is meant when a phrase of symbol is used. But most of the time, there is a definition to be had and efforts to spin it into some benign, if not positive, meaning are nonsense. And then there are instances where a disputed meaning doesn’t matter and the very fact that a question is raised reflects the impropriety of its use.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You again chide Justice Alito for not remaining above the political fray but is it possible anymore to express political philosophy without risking some motivated political entity assigning some derogatory meaning to the expression? If so, it’s a quickly closing window of opportunity.
The Appeal to Heaven flag still has a fixed original meaning, just like From the River to the Sea. As I’m sure you know, it’s based on a passage from John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government. George Washington found it inspiring & hence the origin of the flag. The original meaning has survived with Google Scholar showing more than 85,000 citations to Locke’s “appeal to heaven” continuing through the years.
Must speakers abandon the flag’s symbolism because bad faith actors choose to assign a new meaning? Must a Supreme Court justice avoid any expression that can have a derogatory political meaning assigned to it? That seems a difficult standard for the current era.
Alito doesn’t get a pass on either your “originalism” argument — which essentially requires believing that the flag flew on his property without reference to the modern uses of the symbol — or on the common sense recognition that the flag was carried by protesters since around the 2010s.
Under the “original” meaning, it was a symbol of revolution. If someone flies the Pine Tree flag today while maintaining its so-called “original” symbolism, it should be interpreted as a call for revolution or resistance against perceived unjust or illegitimate authority. This interpretation is rooted in the historical context where the flag represented the colonists’ right to challenge and overthrow oppressive rule, invoking divine support for their cause. Doesn’t seem like a good position for a Supreme Court “Justice” to be advertising.
On the other hand, if the flag was being used in the more modern sense (adopted essentially in the 2010s), then it’s not necessarily a call for an outright revolution, but “merely” resistance and an appeal to foundational or higher principles. Those “higher principles” are principles that are considered superior to or more fundamental than those inscribed in the current laws or governmental structures. They often refer to moral, ethical, or natural laws that are believed to transcend human-made laws. When current laws are perceived as failing to align with these higher principles, symbols like the Pine Tree flag with “Appeal to Heaven” may be used to advocate for reform or resistance.
So, under either interpretation, it doesn’t seem appropriate for a so-called “justice” of the Supreme Court to be flying the flag.
I think I understand your position & the two available meanings you assign to the flag. However, I think that taken to its logical conclusion, your position would also prohibit a SCOTUS justice, “so called” or otherwise, from flying the U.S. flag, as it has been assigned a meaning of racism & white nationalism in addition to having been flown at the J6 riot.
By pretty much everyone who flies it, right?
There have to be some absolutes otherwise everything is relative and rape is “an act of decolonization” for one person and complimenting the color of a shirt to someone else. To cite your example “from the river to the sea” is “from water to water Palestine will be Arab” in a literal translation. The common English version is already obfuscated to make it appear les genocidal. Giving control of language also cedes control of the argument, it’s New Speak all over again
When I was in college, some student group devoted to a small minority of the student body, maybe five percent or so, announced that the upcoming Tuesday was “wear blue jeans to support us!” day. This being the principal state university of a smallish not-hugely-prosperous rural state, easily 90% of the 20,000-strong student body wore blue jeans (Levi’s 501s and Wrangler boot cuts were the most popular, although there were some affluent enough to wear Calvin’s) to classes on any given day, and on the anointed Tuesday, the students remained forever in blue jeans (whether listening to Neil Diamond or the Swingin’ Bluejeans), but there was no uptick in the support, membership, etc., of the student group; snorted laughter was the typical response.
The moral of this story is that mean-spirited loudmouths don’t get to redefine a symbol or behavior or word just because they want to exaggerate their claimed number of supporters, or use it as a shibboleth of the wrongthinkers. The Left’s absurd attempt at redefining the “OK” hand sign into a white supremacist signal is a good example of such tomfoolery. And I guarantee if Sam Alito wrote opinions the progressive toads agreed with, he could fly a goddamned swastika flag and the likes of Dahlia Lithwick wouldn’t say a word.
Will semiotics achieve social currency?
Hey Pops, yours and Mr. Kerr’s understanding of linguistics is lacking. “Semantic change” is that super simple term you all are after. It’s not new at all, and it happens all of the time. What you’re saying here is what you’ve said clearly before.
Of course, as I’ve said before calling “the river to the sea” anything near peaceful is worth ridicule, so it’s a battlefield, and good on you for fighting the good fight.
It all depends on what the meaning of “is” is.