40. "Self-appointed"

-->

"Self-appointed" is a put-down word that says, "You stepped in and made yourself a judge, or an expert," or whatever. Its lift-up opposite, "other-appointed" (i.e., in the usual way), though never spoken, is felt in the emphasis on "self." That opposite is a shadow, always there — for some readers anyway.

Here's a test. Jed Lipinsky calls Max Goldberg "a self-appointed organic-food guru" (NYT 2-3-11). Do you find yourself wondering if organic-food people ever get together to appoint their guru? Do you pity Goldberg? Those people, at that meeting, are his only escape from the put-down. Unless he keeps his mouth shut; one word from him on organic food and he's appointed himself guru.

Here's a more complicated test. A Times editorial writer refers to "a self-appointed gang of six senators" (5-19-11). Nobody appoints gangs. "Groups" will be the word, neutral and maybe looking for a lift. "Gangs" is already a put-down. So, do you see a put-down on a put-down, worth a giggle, or do you see an impossibility, three Republican and three Democratic senators saying, "Let's make ourselves into a gang"? That's worth a gasp. If you gasp I think you're seeing the shadows behind "gang of...." — bandits, LA motorcyclists, Chinese plotters against the state. "Six U. S. senators, in conclave duly assembled, did today....” Those most conscious of shadow-opposites will gasp the loudest.

This way lies the guffaw. A Times letter-writer calls Osama bin Laden a "proud, self-appointed mass murderer" (5-10-11). No, he just couldn't wait for the annual meeting of the Mass Murder Association.

That's the extreme. In between, in the Times, we have a "self-appointed pension-reform warrior," a "self-appointed spokesman for fandom," and "self-appointed wise men" (Paul Krugman). And, outside it all, we have "self-appointed" used accurately. Robert Mackey calls Laurent Gbagbo Cote Ivoire's "self-appointed president" (NYT 4-7-11). Exactly. Gbagbo ignored election results and declared himself president. The put-down was in the fact itself, and nobody could deny it or laugh at it.

How is it that writers come to turn the laugh on themselves? Out of uncritical love for the put-down, I think. They see what a smack "self-appointed" delivers to bad guys like Gbagbo and they want to deliver it to all bad guys — whether or not it's justified. Bad guys deserve it. Any stick to beat a dog.

Serious writers may realize that they are, oh temporarily, speaking loosely, but they may not realize the danger in what they are assuming about their readers: that they, too dull to see shadow-opposites, are all taking the words loosely. They have entered the world of half listeners and loose thinkers, people whose assumptions about each other spread and legitimize a loose vocabulary — the one where "democratic" means "good" and "fascistic" means "bad." It's a world where loose words in the right cause are easily forgiven. You don't laugh at good guys. It's sharing that view that sets you up for surprise when you hear laughter.