5 ms·

Words aren't projections. His brother was a homophobe because his attitudes towards his brother were homophobic.

omonra 12y ago
Are you an insectophobe because you crush bugs? No - because our society doesn't have this concept. By the same token, it's not correct to label Nabokov to label a homophobe for not sharing progressive attitudes of a society that came 100 years after. Such labels are judgement calls - which must be made in the context of the society the person lived in.
- jedanbik 12y ago
  What word would be more appropriate than homophobe here? I know it's fun to argue, but what is your point?
  - omonra 12y ago
    The word homophobe implies that his views were more extreme toward homosexuals than majority of his class - which is simply untrue. If you want, you could say 'his views, while progressive at the time, would be considered homophobic by the standards of 2014'.
    - jedanbik 12y ago
      I'm fine with using the word homophobia to describe homophobia. Just because most people were something doesn't mean they weren't that something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
      - omonra 12y ago
        Fair enough - I take your point. He didn't like gays.
- parasubvert 12y ago
  This linguistic social relativism you state is complete bs. I do agree the moral judgement of a person holding a currently repugnant view of course must be weighed by historical and social context. Words to describe a belief or set of behaviours, however , are context-free. Do we claim Henry Ford wasn't antisemetic because almost everyone was in his era? No. Do we claim slave owners weren't racist in the 18th and 19th century because everyone was racist back then? No. Same for our racist grandparents (I had a Nazi in the family until recently). "Oh that was a different time". Sure , it shapes the broader moral picture of a person. Doesn't make them less racist. Same for homophobia. Not everyone was homophobic in Nabokov's time. The definition has nothing to do with why one may hold the view. It's just a statement that they did. One might critisize that the word fuses a clinical term "phobia" so casually, when "anti-homosexual" might be more accurate... but that ship has sailed.
  - omonra 12y ago
    Do you actually know how Nabokov's homophobia was manifested? Ie your Nazi relative (if he subscribed to the Nazi doctrine) believed that Jews should be physically exterminated. Slave owners actually owned slaves (although in Africa slavery was as or more common - without any racism involved, so not sure if it's even a required condition). Meanwhile Nabokov viewed homosexuality akin to any other sexual aberration. For example how today we may look at someone with a foot fetish, yet whose life is completely taken over by it. He didn't disavow his brother nor advocate violence - as a libertarian he believed that people were free to do in private as they pleased. If you want to draw a valid example - you'd have to start by calling Darwin & Lincoln racists. Ie people that you probably admire yet who shared views with majority of the educated class at the time that today would be considered racist by many.
    - parasubvert 12y ago
      But historians do acknowledge that Lincoln and Darwin were racist in certain ways. They certainly are admirable people in many respects, but were far from saints.

Are you an insectophobe because you crush bugs? No - because our society doesn't have this concept. By the same token, it's not correct to label Nabokov to label a homophobe for not sharing progressive attitudes of a society that came 100 years after. Such labels are judgement calls - which must be made in the context of the society the person lived in.

jedanbik 12y ago
What word would be more appropriate than homophobe here? I know it's fun to argue, but what is your point?
- omonra 12y ago
  The word homophobe implies that his views were more extreme toward homosexuals than majority of his class - which is simply untrue. If you want, you could say 'his views, while progressive at the time, would be considered homophobic by the standards of 2014'.
  - jedanbik 12y ago
    I'm fine with using the word homophobia to describe homophobia. Just because most people were something doesn't mean they weren't that something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
    - omonra 12y ago
      Fair enough - I take your point. He didn't like gays.
parasubvert 12y ago
This linguistic social relativism you state is complete bs. I do agree the moral judgement of a person holding a currently repugnant view of course must be weighed by historical and social context. Words to describe a belief or set of behaviours, however , are context-free. Do we claim Henry Ford wasn't antisemetic because almost everyone was in his era? No. Do we claim slave owners weren't racist in the 18th and 19th century because everyone was racist back then? No. Same for our racist grandparents (I had a Nazi in the family until recently). "Oh that was a different time". Sure , it shapes the broader moral picture of a person. Doesn't make them less racist. Same for homophobia. Not everyone was homophobic in Nabokov's time. The definition has nothing to do with why one may hold the view. It's just a statement that they did. One might critisize that the word fuses a clinical term "phobia" so casually, when "anti-homosexual" might be more accurate... but that ship has sailed.
- omonra 12y ago
  Do you actually know how Nabokov's homophobia was manifested? Ie your Nazi relative (if he subscribed to the Nazi doctrine) believed that Jews should be physically exterminated. Slave owners actually owned slaves (although in Africa slavery was as or more common - without any racism involved, so not sure if it's even a required condition). Meanwhile Nabokov viewed homosexuality akin to any other sexual aberration. For example how today we may look at someone with a foot fetish, yet whose life is completely taken over by it. He didn't disavow his brother nor advocate violence - as a libertarian he believed that people were free to do in private as they pleased. If you want to draw a valid example - you'd have to start by calling Darwin & Lincoln racists. Ie people that you probably admire yet who shared views with majority of the educated class at the time that today would be considered racist by many.
  - parasubvert 12y ago
    But historians do acknowledge that Lincoln and Darwin were racist in certain ways. They certainly are admirable people in many respects, but were far from saints.