Interesting idea, Jeff (original below). Intuitively, I didn't agree, but
it seems like something that deserves some thought. I think of "do gooder"
to mean some one who is trying to use or do something according to higher
morals / ethics than the general culture, or at least the person using the
label. It is similar to "goodie-two-shoes" (sp?). They're often meant to
express "why can't they just be like (=as bad as) everyone else?". With
this interpretation "do gooder environmentalist" makes sense to me. This
is not to discredit your general idea, though. Could the opposite (though
this sets things up for a dichotomy and either / or thinking) could be a
"run of the mill environmentalist" or more likely, from the point of view
of one who uses the phrase, "a typical working (logger, stock broker, car
salesman) guy like me"?
The fact that they seem to be comparing the "do gooder" to the culture at
large, or at least their peers, it could be said that they are immersed in
their culture, or at least looking at it from within their culture. It is
meant to put someone down, so the fact that it may not be accurate, or even
very meaningful, may not be relevant.
I guess I need a few more examples to see the general principle at work.
It seems important to look at the purpose of the label, which is not always
to describe or identify. The point of view it is coming from is also
important. Someone not affected by "cultural immersion" may still use
labels without clear opposites. Can I think of an example . . . ? . . .
Not off hand. What came to mind was that it is more likely that there is
always an "opposite", which could include what ever it is that the speaker
considers them self, or what they are comparing the labeled person or thing
to. So, I guess I do agree with your feelings about labels, often
containing bias and little information.
Interesting thought. I'm not sure I added much though; I guess I'm just
one of those pie in the sky philosophers : )
Eric Storm
Jeff wrote:
> Culture and Language
>
> I've got a theory about how we can detect cultural
> immersion. If a conversation contains labels which
> do not have clear opposite then the opposite is not
> part of the culture and is a cultural bias.
>
> I think this can be proved, but not sure about how
> to do it. The best i can do is to show how it works
> by an example. If someone says the problem is due
> to "do gooder environmentalist" then we assume this
> is a clear statement. But... is it. What is a common
> opposite? How is anyone who is concerned about the
> environment different from a "do gooder environmentalist"?
>
> To me the use of labels often carry bias and not information.
> The real meaning is "people the culture disagrees with"
