apartheid
Pretty loaded word, right? I immediately think of these things when I hear it: 1. racism. 2. lack of civil rights. 3. violence. In other words - a specific historical context, the brutal Afrikaans regime of South Africa.
But the term has more general meaning than that. According to various dictionary definitions, apartheid can also mean "A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups", or "The policy or practice of political, legal, economic, or social discrimination, as against the members of a minority group."
What I find intriguing here is that defined in this general sense, apartheid might well not be the result of an intentional policy. It may equally arise from economic conditions, or by other forms of disputes (including land, water, mineral rights, etc).
In that sense apartheid becomes an important term because it fundamentally describes an illiberal condition, one that can and must be remedied via liberal institutions.
However, it is also a loaded word. Calling a given condition "apartheid" immediately invites the comparison to Souuth Africa.
So the question is, does the word apartheid have any valid use or meaning anymore? Can it be used in any sober analysis without immediately derailing the discussion?
I could well write a similar post about fascism, it seems. It's a pity because these words have descriptive power. Perhaps we simply need new words, free of their baggage, to describe the general concepts they embody.
I found myself thinking about this after reading Kevin Drum's post about how Jimmy Carter's seemingly reasonable use of the word apartheid to describe the status of Palestinians in the West Bank is drawing predictable fire.
But the term has more general meaning than that. According to various dictionary definitions, apartheid can also mean "A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups", or "The policy or practice of political, legal, economic, or social discrimination, as against the members of a minority group."
What I find intriguing here is that defined in this general sense, apartheid might well not be the result of an intentional policy. It may equally arise from economic conditions, or by other forms of disputes (including land, water, mineral rights, etc).
In that sense apartheid becomes an important term because it fundamentally describes an illiberal condition, one that can and must be remedied via liberal institutions.
However, it is also a loaded word. Calling a given condition "apartheid" immediately invites the comparison to Souuth Africa.
So the question is, does the word apartheid have any valid use or meaning anymore? Can it be used in any sober analysis without immediately derailing the discussion?
I could well write a similar post about fascism, it seems. It's a pity because these words have descriptive power. Perhaps we simply need new words, free of their baggage, to describe the general concepts they embody.
I found myself thinking about this after reading Kevin Drum's post about how Jimmy Carter's seemingly reasonable use of the word apartheid to describe the status of Palestinians in the West Bank is drawing predictable fire.
Comments