Today's word is: Humbug
Saturday, 14 May 2005 06:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
daWhat's your definition of humbug?
I haven't previously given the word much thought, but I always took it as a generic synonym for a lie or a liar; only paired with "Bah" or "You old..." But that's a bastardization of the real meaning; it didn't used to be a generic bland epithet. Its meaning is much more toward "hoax", according to the dictionary. I think the time is ripe for a rediscovery of the humbug.
Today's Globe and Mail had an article in the Book Reviews about two books broadly about manufacturing consent. The first, Humbugs of the World: An Account of Humbugs, Delusions, Impositions, Quackeries, Deceits and Deceivers Generally, in all Ages, written by P.T. Barnum in 1866 and reprinted in 2004, includes a definition of humbug that really speaks to me. Pasted from the article:
"Barnum set out to differentiate between those who create humbugs and those who are simply liars, cheats and swindlers.
The difference, he said, lies in the relationship of the audience to the idea or object being presented. A lie is simply an attempt to deceive. It asks the audience to accept what it is being told is true. It is a one-sided conversation.
But for Barnum, a humbug demanded audience participation. It invited the audience to judge if something was legitimate or not. He was never insulted if questioned whether something he presented was real or a fraud. "Persons who pay their money at the door," he wrote, "have a right to form their own opinions after they have got upstairs."
Humbuggery was a perfectly appropriate means of entertainment for a democratic, Enlightenment-era population- it came down to deciding what was true, for yourself. It required critical thinking, and sufficient doubt. But not too much doubt. As the article says, Barnum became discouraged when he discovered that "many persons have such a horror of being taken in, or such an elevated opinion of their own acuteness, that they believe everything to be a sham, and in this way are constantly humbugging themselves."
Meanwhile, today in our Post-Enlightenment world, our entertainment typically requires so little critical thinking that we wouldn't know a humbug from a hamburger. I think this is one part of why mass media is currently so.... boring. Is it foolish of me to wish for more modern humbuggery to keep us on our toes? Not necessarily Barnum-type mermaids and Weekly World News bat boys, though Weekly World News is a good thing, but rather more people like The Yes Men and (R)(tm)ark. Other political satire that requires a bit of thought to understand. Illusion and reality- maybe Penn & Teller. Maybe some campiness. Lily Tomlin? Sure, she's a bit of a humbug.
But it's not the same thing as cynicism... It's a fine line between inviting cynicism and inviting skepticism.
I haven't previously given the word much thought, but I always took it as a generic synonym for a lie or a liar; only paired with "Bah" or "You old..." But that's a bastardization of the real meaning; it didn't used to be a generic bland epithet. Its meaning is much more toward "hoax", according to the dictionary. I think the time is ripe for a rediscovery of the humbug.
Today's Globe and Mail had an article in the Book Reviews about two books broadly about manufacturing consent. The first, Humbugs of the World: An Account of Humbugs, Delusions, Impositions, Quackeries, Deceits and Deceivers Generally, in all Ages, written by P.T. Barnum in 1866 and reprinted in 2004, includes a definition of humbug that really speaks to me. Pasted from the article:
"Barnum set out to differentiate between those who create humbugs and those who are simply liars, cheats and swindlers.
The difference, he said, lies in the relationship of the audience to the idea or object being presented. A lie is simply an attempt to deceive. It asks the audience to accept what it is being told is true. It is a one-sided conversation.
But for Barnum, a humbug demanded audience participation. It invited the audience to judge if something was legitimate or not. He was never insulted if questioned whether something he presented was real or a fraud. "Persons who pay their money at the door," he wrote, "have a right to form their own opinions after they have got upstairs."
Humbuggery was a perfectly appropriate means of entertainment for a democratic, Enlightenment-era population- it came down to deciding what was true, for yourself. It required critical thinking, and sufficient doubt. But not too much doubt. As the article says, Barnum became discouraged when he discovered that "many persons have such a horror of being taken in, or such an elevated opinion of their own acuteness, that they believe everything to be a sham, and in this way are constantly humbugging themselves."
Meanwhile, today in our Post-Enlightenment world, our entertainment typically requires so little critical thinking that we wouldn't know a humbug from a hamburger. I think this is one part of why mass media is currently so.... boring. Is it foolish of me to wish for more modern humbuggery to keep us on our toes? Not necessarily Barnum-type mermaids and Weekly World News bat boys, though Weekly World News is a good thing, but rather more people like The Yes Men and (R)(tm)ark. Other political satire that requires a bit of thought to understand. Illusion and reality- maybe Penn & Teller. Maybe some campiness. Lily Tomlin? Sure, she's a bit of a humbug.
But it's not the same thing as cynicism... It's a fine line between inviting cynicism and inviting skepticism.
