Against our will, nouns are sometimes chosen to speak for us.
It is old news now that Donald Trump imposed himself on FIFA to get the soccer federation to lift a red card suspension of American player Folarin Balogun. The top scorer was set to sit out a semi-final round match against Belgium. Of course, as we know, FIFA reinstated him after an appeal by Trump, with justifiable criticism of the decision worldwide. A Belgian analyst spoke for many when he noted that this was yet “another example of a rogue, unconstrained America.” And there was apparent joy everywhere except here when the American men lost the game.
Fair enough, perhaps, but one can’t help but notice the rhetorical trap the presence of Donald Trump has incited again when his questionable leadership is used to stand in for “America,” “the United States,” or other similar collective nouns. In short, Trump is a rhetorical synecdoche, the linguistic sleight of hand where one is allowed to stand for many.
We all rely on this device as a way to simplify events and individuals, placing a population or a larger portion of one under the umbrella of a summary judgment.
But to our European and world friends, I would caution that they ponder the distortion built into this device. Trump’s awful conduct and judgment isn’t mine, nor any of my friends, nor representative of most of those in my town or state. Poll numbers clearly indicate that Trump has the allegiance of perhaps only a third of the American population. And, true, his position gives him the right to speak for us, but only partially, and on certain official matters.
Simplistic reduction is a necessary way to organize our thoughts about the world. We feel safe noting that “Italians love to cook,” or “Scandinavian men are taciturn,” or “Canadians are always nice.” But I have known mean Canadians, talkative Swedes, and Italians who are indifferent eaters. Every broad conclusion where one is intended to stand for many has huge limitations. I rue the judgment of British journalists that “America is no longer a reliable friend.” That hurts because most of us have not done anything to shake our faith and affection for our British cousins. The statist approach to world news may make it easy to toss around glib conclusions. But that only works when a synecdoche is used as a blind to conceal many exceptions that those with time constraints don’t want to explain.
Keep this odd word in mind. It is a good check on thinking that is in the midst of making unjustified leaps.
It is hard to overstate the threat posed by conservative ideologues to the vital, multidimensional social sciences that yield vital social capital so important to the nation. The trouble starts with the Trump Administration but extends to hostilities toward the human sciences from states like Florida and Texas, think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, and too many in the American and occasionally European population who don’t know what they don’t know. Modern societies have advanced to a point where they can be smart about how to enhance humans living in close proximity to others. The UK’s Prime Minister once offered the stunning conclusion that “There is no such thing as society.” For her and other primitives, there are only individuals: men and women as creatures buffeted by whatever physical and circumstantial circumstances intersect with their lives. Likewise, for a shallow and narcissistic thinker like Donald Trump there is no moral issue with his government cutting basic human needs programs like jobs, healthcare, or housing and personal safety. As summarized by the New York Times, his administration has formalized its intention to cut funding to “initiatives that ‘promote anti-American values,’ contribute to illegal immigration, advance diversity, equity and inclusion or assist in voter registration.” All of these values are viewed as “anti-American,” even while including some of the founding principles of the nation.