A problem with pronouns
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.
– Albert Einstein
This is one of my favourite quotations. I believe it expresses an important truth. On occasion, however, I have seen a subtly amended version…
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. Those to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, are as good as dead: their eyes are closed.
– Albert Einstein
See the difference? Some would say that the revisionists are falling prey to “political correctness”. Trouble is; I tend to find that those who use the term ‘political correctness gone mad‘ or use a tone of dismissive derision when uttering the acronym ‘P.C.’ are actually people who have precisely zero understanding of the deeper issues involved (for instance the impact that a gender bias in language can have on a culture).
Some – indeed most – of the actual instances of “politically correct policy” are of course ludicrous. But that’s because they tend to be implemented by power-crazed petty tyrants who themselves have but a slender grasp of the issue. This does not mean there isn’t a discussion to be had regarding the ways in which language can affect culture and whether there might not be steps to be taken that would neutralise the more negative of those effects.
But there’s a few things that need to be said regarding this particular kind of revisionism. Firstly; the amended version of the Einstein quote, with the gender specificity removed, doesn’t sound right. For all intents and purposes the meaning hasn’t changed, but the sound of the words is clumsier. Stilted even. When compared to the original, it’s really not very satisfactory.
Secondly; Einstein was writing in German, and in the 1920s. Any misguided attempt to “update” his language will most likely end up like a badly-colourised version of The Big Sleep or one of those ludicrous bibles in contemporary English. It runs the risk of obscuring the meaning by focussing attention on obviously incongruous phrasing. Not what you want at all really.
Thirdly; while nobody would claim that Einstein deliberately used masculine pronouns to indicate that he was only talking about men; nonetheless any amendment is making assumptions. It sets a very dangerous precedent. The removal of the masculine pronouns doesn’t appear to change the underlying meaning of the quote… but that view is itself a product of a time and place. The impulse to strip such a quotation of its gender specificity, based on the belief that the specificity was not intended, is clearly a culturally-determined attitude.
To engage in that kind of revisionism, therefore, is to give tacit support to other; perhaps less benign; culturally-determined revisionism. Reaching back into the past and amending the words of historical figures to better reflect modern values is an extremely dangerous activity, and even the most timid and well-intentioned steps onto such a slippery slope should be resisted at all costs.
Really nice post. A propos of zilch, my mate’s daughter goes to a nursery school where they *really do* sing Baa Baa Grey Sheep. I always assumed the Daily Mail invented those places to fill column space.
April 23rd, 2006 | 6:27pm
by Jarndyce
If Einstein wrote that in German, then you are effectively presenting two translations. Seems odd to stick up for one and say the other is “PC” and ruining his flow. For all I know, the one with “he” in it may misrepresent the original German. So it would be better to give the German in a case like this. Certainly translators too are creatures of their time, putting in “he” or even “thou” and “thy”, when the original committed none of the faults we have become fond of.
April 23rd, 2006 | 10:42pm
by Joel
Definitely true that this sort of revisionism’s dodgy, we need a “warts and all” approach to history. But Joel has a point: German has the neutral pronoun “man” (I’m putting the German word forward there, not being ironically stoned). From what I remember of my German, it’s kind of equivalent to our word “one” (as in “One doesn’t do that sort of thing”), but much less posh. But then maybe Einstein used “er” to make his point more personal and have more impact? (PS. Wow, live preview! Your blog’s going to be self-aware by the time I get back!)
April 24th, 2006 | 8:12am
by Gyrus
Besides all of the above, Einstein, for all his genius, was a man of his time and would have thought nothing of using ‘he’ without thought to gender inequality. The revision, as you say is meaningless.
April 24th, 2006 | 8:44am
by Pisces Iscariot
You do have a point, Joel, but I’m not 100% sure it’s applicable in this case. This was one of Einstein’s favourite lines and it appears in several places in his writing in slightly different guises. Another, for example, is this…
The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who does not know it, and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed out candle.
That last version appears in a lecture he gave in English.
(Aside: A little known fact; although Einstein could speak English fluently, he had trouble reading it, and could not write in the language at all. A fact he put down to “the treacherous spelling”.)
As Pisces points out, Einstein was indeed a man of his time. In the transcripts of his English-language lectures, as well as on the few recordings I’ve heard, he universally uses the masculine pronoun when referring to people in general.
This does not diminish your general point regarding translations though; another area where the unintended (or intended) voice of an intermediary can alter meaning. But in this particular case, I’m confident that gender-neutral translations are the direct result of cultural bias.
Gyrus, not being a German speaker I’m unfortunately handicapped when it comes to a deep analysis of Einstein’s writing. I’m half-sorry I used that example now… I’m sure I could have found a quote from an English writer to illustrate the same point. But I used that one because it’s the one that got me thinking about the subject.
Where have you got to by the way? One blog entry does not a travel journal make y’know? (however long it may be) I’m hoping it’s been sun, sea, lovely food and plenty of good times.
April 24th, 2006 | 12:13pm
by Jim
I agree Jim, with your overall point about updating ‘he’. People should leave language as it was written. Here the case is different though, because it was written in German. More a point about the example chosen.
The other side of the coin is the appalling ‘translation’ of the Daodejing (Tao Te Ching) by Stephen Mitchell, who reads no Chinese, who has replaced ‘he’ by ‘she’ and patted himself on the back for a job well done, where the original actually very rarely specifies gender at all and floats beautifully in space without need of personal pronouns.
April 24th, 2006 | 12:32pm
by Joel
And, I should add, the Daodejing doesn’t need to be peppered with personal pronouns when translated into English. I recommend the translation by Stephen Addiss and Stanley Lombardo, which gives a real feel of what the Chinese is like. Of course, this work is nowhere near as ‘popular’ as the Mitchell version.
April 24th, 2006 | 1:02pm
by Joel
Whilst it’s a good point well made Jim, I do understand the urge to amend. Not merely to bring a good quote in line with the political mores of our time and thus make someone nice look good, but for the very reason you say it should be left alone.
As a flipside to the contemporary Bible point, not changing it can be equivalent to presenting the reader with a 14th century Bible. This use of archaic language obscures the meaning.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I like that about Christianity because it prevents the bastards converting people. I’m not going to give myself over to the message if I’ve no idea what it is. As long as we have 8 year olds singing ‘Lo He abhors not the virgin’s womb’ we need have no fear of them understanding the Good News.
Increasingly, the use of gender specific pronouns jars; it distracts the reader from the meaning of the quote. Imagine how you’d feel if if the pronoun meant ‘rich white men’.
I do think it’s a tricky one, and I see both sides. Had you written what I just said, I doubtless be putting your point.
April 25th, 2006 | 5:16pm
by Merrick
From the feminist point of view, this is clearly correct…
Having grown up with my mother and my sister, as my father wasn’t around, i have felt the need for this adjustment from and early age.
The masculine bias exists in many aspects of our language, but is applied in a seemingly ambiguous manner. I admire the French language in this respect, clear ground rules appear to be a sound approach to gender issues and from a historians’ point of view has to be soooo useful.
I started using the word ‘one’ to replace ‘he’ early on and much chastisement followed. British schools and culture being what they were this was considered to be a class attached use of language. For a long time this left me utterly confused as it seemed to me that i was doing the right thing in using the word.
I don’t believe Einstein would have seen any particular conflict in the term ‘he’ as an identifier of the individual. I tend to think of language as a fluid reflection of everything significant that makes up culture and is additionally a product of its own history. What we observe with critical hindsight is entirely based on our current political bias. I doubt many (any even) folks would have prompted Einstein to have adjusted the manner of his references given when he was writing.
Had it been the sixties however, I suspect the quote might well have been writen as you propose Jim. A German linguist i am sure could confirm.
April 26th, 2006 | 1:51am
by Matt Gahan
I don’t speak much German, but I’m sure Germans use the word ‘man’ as the equivalent pronoun to the English ‘one’. There is, as far as I know, no movement in Germany to replace this word with something more inclusive.
Incidentally, Jim, have you ever read Marcus Brigstocke’s year-old article about the benefits Political Correctness and how it has become hijacked?
May 2nd, 2006 | 11:33am
by Oscar Wildebeest