Some thoughts on shibboleths and how they emerge.
This tweet is easy to dunk on because it is literally, factually untrue; pronouns are a common part of the English language and the Constitution uses many of them. It’s like saying there are no zeros in a million dollars.
It’s not Spicer’s first use of it, either. “There are no pronouns in the Bible!” False, obviously. “Jesus never introduced himself with pronouns!” False; “I am He” is literally an introduction with pronouns. Elementary school stuff, here. Despite that, she keeps saying it.
As she’s brutally ratio’d, she responds not with embarrassment, clarification, or even arguments, but the smug certainty of someone who knows pedants aren’t hearing what she’s really saying: that God, America, The Bible, and Justice, are on her side re: this ‘Gender Stuff.’
The people who agree with her — who view societal acceptance and accommodation of previously shat-on people-groups as a shots fired in a war on decency and freedom — they understand what she’s saying, too.
The idea of “sharing your pronouns” isn’t about linguistics, it’s about how society accommodates people outside their acceptable norms. That’s what they object to, that’s what they’re threatened by, and that’s what they mean when they say “pronouns.”
The word “shibboleth” comes from one of the Bible’s many stories of inter-tribal hijinks; Group A wanted to wipe out Group B, but B managed to evade them and was set to escape. So A set up a checkpoint, and forced everyone passing through to say a particular word: shibboleth.
Group B, according to the story, always pronounced it differently than Group A. So in the heat of battle, it became a quick and easy way to tell the sheep from the goats — and kill 'em.
If you’ve ever had to troubleshoot shibboleth authentication on a university intranet, you’ll appreciate the grisly side of that story. In general culture though, it’s come to mean any belief or behavior that seems pointless but serves to distinguish ingroup from outgroup.
The modern right’s obsession with redefining common terms as signals of evil or righteousness fits cleanly into this narrative.
Group A didn’t kill B because they were deeply committed to proper pronunciation; Spicer and her followers don’t give a shit about language, either.
So, yeah, I’m going to laugh about Spicer and point out that she’s a fool. We deserve a chuckle at self-parodying absurdity. But it’s important we realize what she is actually saying, and what her audience is hearing; they aren’t embarrassed by her “mistake.” They’re invigorated.