What is Real?

(Despite the title, this blog post will be markedly lacking in stoned freshman metaphysics.  I’m sure you’re all relieved.)

I came across this article the other day.  (Funny how many of my posts seem to start that way. It’s like my version of “A funny thing happened on my way to…”.  Anyways.) I think it’s a great article that makes a lot of very good points.  Of course I do, or I wouldn’t be bringing it up, right?  However, I wanto to unpack those points a little in a broader context.

First of all, just to get it out of the way (and this is my only real beef with the article), she’s clearly unaware of (or forgetting) the definition of strength having to do with potency, which means her causation link is wrong.  We don’t call “manly” drinks strong because only men could handle such high-proof (or high-tasting proof, anyways) drinks, we call them strong because they are literally more potent potables (no, you don’t get a link for that one.  If you don’t know it, I don’t want to know you!). However, she’s right that stronger drinks are generally considered “manly”, so the general point still holds.

Besides that, she’s got a fair point overall.  Back in college (most absolutely once I was past drinking age, naturally…………), I was a sweet drink person.  I couldn’t take shots without wanting to
vomit, and I didn’t like beer yet, so that didn’t leave a whole lot, y’know?  But nevertheless, despite not having grown up around drinking at all (wine coolers don't count), I still managed to internalize the sense that I was supposed to feel shame about drinking them, because they were “girly” drinks.  (My workaround was Long Island Iced Teas, where the manliness of the strength seems to outweigh the sweetness in popular opinion.) 

 
(Random question: why doesn’t rum and Coke seem to count as a girly drink?  I get Jack and Coke
(blech) because of the whiskey, but the rum doesn’t have that association.)

Now, of course, I’m much more likely to drink (good) beer (generally from a bottle or a glass,  although more microbreweries are starting to can, which is perfectly fine) or scotch than I am to drink something like a cosmo or a mojito, but that’s simply because my tastes have changed.  And it took someone who I respected telling me he didn’t care what I drank for me to start to be okay
with liking sweet drinks.  (Thanks, Chad!) 

And needing to be told that for the external validation is a whole different issue, because I shouldn’t need to be told that it’s okay for me to like a “girly” drink.  If my drink of choice happens to be cosmos, or mai tais, or whatever else, who cares?  What should it matter to anyone else?  Why does liking those drinks make me any less “manly”?

Why?  Because as a society, we’ve created this idea of what a “real” man is, and that idea doesn’t
include drinking sweet drinks.

Now, as a white male, I’m not going to talk too much about internalizing toxic societal narratives, because I have a better sense of self-awareness and self-preservation than that. No, instead my interest here is about language, because I am Stannis.

So let’s look at some definitions, shall we?

The definition (well, one definition, anyways) of “real” is “existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious”.  The definition  of “man” is “an adult male person”.   (I admit I’m not up on the latest gender theory, so hopefully this definition addresses gender identity appropriately.)

Therefore, by definition, a “real man” is someone who is an actual adult male person.

That’s it.  That’s all.

There’s nothing there about what you drink, or eat, or wear, or do for recreation, or how you talk, or how you treat others, or anything else.  Are you an adult male person?  Congratulations, you’re a real man!

Of course, that’s not exactly an advertising bonanza.  And so people start trying to ascribe additional meanings to the word “man”, to mean someone who drinks whiskey, or wears Wranglers, or helps women out of cars, or watches NASCAR, or whatever.  And they try to say that only a “man” who does those things is a “real” man.

But that’s obviously not true, and there’s a couple problems with it.  One is that many people may not
agree with your attempted redefinition of “man”.  The other is that now you’ve converted “man” from a simple dictionary definition to an idea. A “man” is now someone who does certain things, acts a certain way, etc.

And you can try to define “man” that way if you want, but first, go take a look at that definition of “real” again: “existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious”.

“Rather than ideal.”

As soon as you start ascribing any meaning to the word “man” other than the dictionary definition, you can no longer use the word “real” in front of it without being wrong. You’re literally using a word in a way that is contrary to its very definition.

(As much as it even hurts me to do it, even Steven Moffat's line at the BAFTA falls into this category.  I absolutely agree with the sentiment, but it's still definitionally wrong.)

And of course languages changes, definitions change, meanings change, and that’s fine.  (More
chances for me to use archaic and obscure definitions!) But I’d argue that “real” is one word, one concept that cannot change.  You don’t get your own definitions; you don’t get your own sets of facts.  If we can’t agree on the fundamental definitions of things, how are we supposed to communicate?

And then, of course, the people doing this compound the issue by making it into a value  judgment. Only “real” things, as conveniently defined by them, are good, deserve respect, whatever.

Real, by definition, has no value judgment.  It’s as value-neutral as it is possible to be.  Something exists, or it doesn’t.  Is that good? Bad?  That’s up to you, but it has nothing to do with whether or not it’s real.

By altering the very meaning of the word “real”, we’re building alienation, differentiation, and a whole lot of other “ations” into the very fabric of our language, and taking away the ability to have any sort of common ground.  If mere existence and definition is imbued with value judgments, then meaningful communication becomes nearly impossible.

Of course, “man” is hardly the only case where this happens, it just happens to be what spun out of my introductory story.  Here are a couple others (this is vastly non-exhaustive, but will at least keep this from sounding too sexist):

“Real mothers”: Oh God, I don’t even want to go here, but it needs to be repeated as often as possible. (And I’m not meaning to be paternalistic here; my female friends seem to feel this way, too, so I’m just helping out.) The definition of “mother” is “female parent”. That’s it.  Are you a female
parent?  Then congratulations, you’re a real mother! 

Notice that this definition says absolutely nothing about feeding methods, working or SAH, or anything else about how you deal with your child.  Female parents are real mothers.  Period.  If you’re trying to crowbar value judgments about parenting methods into your definition, you’re wrong (and also probably a jerk).

“Real Americans”: In honor of the upcoming election season (although at this point, when isn’t there an upcoming election season, aside from when it’s an actual election season?), I thought I’d give this one a shot, too.  The definition of “American”?  “A native or inhabitant of the United States of America”.  (I’m paraphrasing slightly).  That’s.  It.

Very few things make me angrier to hear than politicians trying to devalue and dismiss the opinions and beliefs of their opponents by claiming that “real Americans” want certain things that just so happen to align with their policy goals.

I know that I hold different political positions than many of you, and I don’t feel that makes you any less of an American than I am.  (Hopefully you feel the same!)  Attempts like this to squelch discourse and discussion through redefinition are incredibly toxic to our political system as
a whole, because they promulgate an us vs. them mentality that may help win elections, but which makes impossible compromise and reconsideration.

As I said, this is hardly intended to be an exhaustive list, because the number of things we’ve loaded up with value judgments and called “real” is simply ridiculous.  “Real” cars, “real” beer, “real” curriculums, “real” videogames, “real” Christians, "real" Muslims, "real" everything.

What is real? Fact.  Provable, cut and dried existence.  Any other use is an abuse of language
in the service of an agenda.

And Stannis doesn’t like abuses of language.