Kate wraps her bare fists in bandages and screams like JCVD as she split-kicks the rest of us - finally, it's a FIGHT! (no, no, *mostly* kidding ;P)
The thing about language changing, or anything in culture, is that this is actualy an active thing, not a "things change" while no one is paying attention to it. The change occurs because people question something, actively, and push for change. Always met with resistance, often generational, but the active questions and new narrative helps bring new generations up with the idea, which then isn't so crazy to them. My problem with the phrase "cancel culture" these days is its overreaching in the same way those who use the term say they're against - all criticism and calls for "change" and stating clearly why old behaviors are troubling or problematic in whatever way, is suddenly "cancel culture".
Even the use of the phrase here - "cancel words" - is a choice. "Phase out" would be mine, since no one is getting punitively punished for their use, outside of some people stating their strong opinions on the topic, which can't = "being cancelled". Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got 'em.
And look, y'all know me, I love a good hyperbolic statement on any article, but "...if we are going to cancel words in our wine lexicon we may as well cancel wine itself"? As you state in the comments, "language evolves", isn't this the same kind of extreme no-quarter no-nuance stance anyone who acually did believe in "cancel culture" would take?
Lastly, most troubling issues in modern day are systemic, meaning they're largely subconscious - assuming anyone does think the terms are offensive, most know no one *means* offense, but that doesn't change the issue with what the terminology or practices seem to be doing, or keeping in place. As I argued in my own entry to this Conversation - "new world" as a specific phrase keeps wine regions that are now centuries old, perpetually "new" aka in second class status, even though most of the regions in the "Old World" are roughly the same age in terms of how they came to be what they are today. Personally, I don't call this "offensive", but I do call it outdated and inaccurate. And hence, the need to find a newer lexicon that represents wine as it has existed from the 1700's - now.
Well, I'm glad we finally have some disagreement around here!
I totally get using the language that customers use, and I'm not kicking anyone out of the winery or looking down my nose at them if they use these terms. I know what they mean, and it helps me find what they like, whether I fully love the terms or not. I was talking about the evolution of my own language to terms I find more accurate as well as inclusive, and maybe eventually that trickles down the line to others who are selling and buying wine. But maybe it doesn't. I'm not fussed about it either way.
What I do want to push back on a bit in your post is the second to last paragraph, when you seem to suggest we shouldn't question unethical business practices in wine because they had to do it for survival, and if they hadn't, there would be no wine. First, I think that's a serious stretch. There are and always have been people making wine without slave labor and unpaid prisoners (which is basically the same thing). I think it's important to be aware of the darker sides of the wine industry, both historically and currently, and if I find out a producer is using slave labor now to produce wine, I'm not going to buy their products or recommend them to anyone else. Is that cancel culture? I think that is what has come to be seen as cancel culture these days, but I think it's a far more insidious and harmful form of cancel culture to hide or ignore negative realities, or to say we should just get over it and appreciate the end product, effectively canceling my freedom to make choices about where my money goes and what goes into my body.
It's a lesser degree of seriousness, but this is related to the language debate as well, because if language isn't allowed to evolve - if people insist on clinging to older terms just because they're older, and refuse to consider how those terms affect the overall conversation - we've "cancelled" any new voices before they've even had the opportunity to speak.
I am absolutely NOT saying we shouldn’t question unethical behavior or ignore/hide it. I am saying that if people want to discuss and cancel phrases and words due to their opinion of their history and their connotations then they also need to be discussing slave labor etc. not ignoring that side of wine. That side of wine is grossly under reported and often ignored. Of course anyone has the right to not discuss those wineries that do have unethical practices (and I don’t buy their wines myself FYI- but I let my customers and I do not judge them for it) but to expect others to do the same or act the same is where I find the toxicity in cancel culture. (Not saying you do by the way)
And of course language evolves- always has and always will. No one is questioning that, or at least I am not. But it is when we cancel others for not toeing the line and following suit that is my main issue.
Gotcha, just wanted to tease that out a bit more! It's always a fine line, because I also want customers to be aware of winery practices so they can make whatever educated decisions they deem appropriate. But then we get into questions of what counts as unethical. I hope everyone can agree that slavery is a dealbreaker, but what about those unpaid or barely paid internships? What about environmentally harmful farming practices? What about dyes and other additives in wine? It's difficult to even know what transparency looks like in this industry. But maybe that's a topic for a future month :)
I get that- I am glad you had me clarify. I do think you may be onto something. It definitely is a topic that deserves a lot of conversation and consideration!
Very good stuff Kate. It sometimes feels like people want to purge language of all richness and history. It's all a bit year zero.
Thanks, Henry. I could not agree more.
Kate wraps her bare fists in bandages and screams like JCVD as she split-kicks the rest of us - finally, it's a FIGHT! (no, no, *mostly* kidding ;P)
The thing about language changing, or anything in culture, is that this is actualy an active thing, not a "things change" while no one is paying attention to it. The change occurs because people question something, actively, and push for change. Always met with resistance, often generational, but the active questions and new narrative helps bring new generations up with the idea, which then isn't so crazy to them. My problem with the phrase "cancel culture" these days is its overreaching in the same way those who use the term say they're against - all criticism and calls for "change" and stating clearly why old behaviors are troubling or problematic in whatever way, is suddenly "cancel culture".
Even the use of the phrase here - "cancel words" - is a choice. "Phase out" would be mine, since no one is getting punitively punished for their use, outside of some people stating their strong opinions on the topic, which can't = "being cancelled". Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got 'em.
And look, y'all know me, I love a good hyperbolic statement on any article, but "...if we are going to cancel words in our wine lexicon we may as well cancel wine itself"? As you state in the comments, "language evolves", isn't this the same kind of extreme no-quarter no-nuance stance anyone who acually did believe in "cancel culture" would take?
Lastly, most troubling issues in modern day are systemic, meaning they're largely subconscious - assuming anyone does think the terms are offensive, most know no one *means* offense, but that doesn't change the issue with what the terminology or practices seem to be doing, or keeping in place. As I argued in my own entry to this Conversation - "new world" as a specific phrase keeps wine regions that are now centuries old, perpetually "new" aka in second class status, even though most of the regions in the "Old World" are roughly the same age in terms of how they came to be what they are today. Personally, I don't call this "offensive", but I do call it outdated and inaccurate. And hence, the need to find a newer lexicon that represents wine as it has existed from the 1700's - now.
I love when we don’t all agree!
Well, I'm glad we finally have some disagreement around here!
I totally get using the language that customers use, and I'm not kicking anyone out of the winery or looking down my nose at them if they use these terms. I know what they mean, and it helps me find what they like, whether I fully love the terms or not. I was talking about the evolution of my own language to terms I find more accurate as well as inclusive, and maybe eventually that trickles down the line to others who are selling and buying wine. But maybe it doesn't. I'm not fussed about it either way.
What I do want to push back on a bit in your post is the second to last paragraph, when you seem to suggest we shouldn't question unethical business practices in wine because they had to do it for survival, and if they hadn't, there would be no wine. First, I think that's a serious stretch. There are and always have been people making wine without slave labor and unpaid prisoners (which is basically the same thing). I think it's important to be aware of the darker sides of the wine industry, both historically and currently, and if I find out a producer is using slave labor now to produce wine, I'm not going to buy their products or recommend them to anyone else. Is that cancel culture? I think that is what has come to be seen as cancel culture these days, but I think it's a far more insidious and harmful form of cancel culture to hide or ignore negative realities, or to say we should just get over it and appreciate the end product, effectively canceling my freedom to make choices about where my money goes and what goes into my body.
It's a lesser degree of seriousness, but this is related to the language debate as well, because if language isn't allowed to evolve - if people insist on clinging to older terms just because they're older, and refuse to consider how those terms affect the overall conversation - we've "cancelled" any new voices before they've even had the opportunity to speak.
I am absolutely NOT saying we shouldn’t question unethical behavior or ignore/hide it. I am saying that if people want to discuss and cancel phrases and words due to their opinion of their history and their connotations then they also need to be discussing slave labor etc. not ignoring that side of wine. That side of wine is grossly under reported and often ignored. Of course anyone has the right to not discuss those wineries that do have unethical practices (and I don’t buy their wines myself FYI- but I let my customers and I do not judge them for it) but to expect others to do the same or act the same is where I find the toxicity in cancel culture. (Not saying you do by the way)
And of course language evolves- always has and always will. No one is questioning that, or at least I am not. But it is when we cancel others for not toeing the line and following suit that is my main issue.
Gotcha, just wanted to tease that out a bit more! It's always a fine line, because I also want customers to be aware of winery practices so they can make whatever educated decisions they deem appropriate. But then we get into questions of what counts as unethical. I hope everyone can agree that slavery is a dealbreaker, but what about those unpaid or barely paid internships? What about environmentally harmful farming practices? What about dyes and other additives in wine? It's difficult to even know what transparency looks like in this industry. But maybe that's a topic for a future month :)
I get that- I am glad you had me clarify. I do think you may be onto something. It definitely is a topic that deserves a lot of conversation and consideration!