The Oxford English Dictionary has accepted idiocracy as an English word this month, noting:
The OED records more than 100 words derived ultimately from the Greek suffix —κÏατία (rendered in English as —cracy), meaning ‘power' or ‘rule'. One more has now been added to the list: idiocracy, referring to a society consisting of or governed by people characterized as idiots, or a government formed of people considered stupid, ignorant, or idiotic. Words like democracy and aristocracyoriginated in ancient Greek, but by the 18th century, -ocracy was being added to English words, as in statocracy and mobocracy. In the 19th century, the trickle of such formations became a flood, with many of the new words being terms of ridicule, a tradition to which idiocracy belongs; the earlier terms foolocracy (1832) and idiotocracy (used by Ambrose Bierce in 1909) express a similar concept. Idiocracy itself is first attested in 1967, but it owes its current prominence to the title of the satirical 2006 film Idiocracy, which depicts a dystopian future in which the human race has become extremely ignorant, stupid, and anti-intellectual.
I am not sure there is a great deal to add by way of comment on this timely decision.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The original Greek idiots were those not interested in politics or affairs of state. My view is that most ocracies will be Persian/Indian in origin – with democracy a Persian form of participatory management designed to keep its colonies in order and help man its navy and army in wars against uppity Greeks. The noble origins of the democracy story was trashed by Thucydides and the idiots may have correctly sensed the fraud that disinterested them. Who can call disinterest in politics and affairs of state idiocy today with charade choices like Trump-Clinton, May-Corbyn and any election with a Macron in it?
I must say I am shocked by this mis-attribution by the OED. ‘Idiocracy’ is clearly formed from idios and not idiotes so must mean something like ‘rule by the private person’ or maybe ‘the realm of the private person.’ To be ‘rule by idiots, it would have to be idiotocracy. But I have even a problem with that. In Athens speakers in the ecclesia were on occasion called idiotes but the intended meaning was that the speaker was expressing a purely private opinion but not necessarily a stupid one.
But since the word has been endorsed by the OED I suppose I have no choice but to accept it. But I must say I feel better having been able to at least grumble about it here.
So Ambrose Bierce was right!
Mind you – he was a tremendous writer. ‘An Occurence at Owl Creech Bridge’ is how I got to know him – a brilliant story well ahead of its time in terms of the way it was written.
I’ve seen the film ‘Idiocracy’ recently on TV.
There was a lot of familiarity in that film with mainstream culture in this country over the years.
A word of warning though. Progressives (including me) have to be really careful about how we refer to those whom we wish to save from themselves (from their ignorance or bias’). It is very hard at times but we have to remember that we will not change people’s thinking by sneering or looking down at them whilst the forces that mislead them smile and treat them with respect thus legitimising what only can be described as a false consciousness or twisted/negative forms of cognition.
I’ve just read ‘Citizen Clem’ and it occurs to me that Attlee’s success (although he lost the next election, Labour’s share of the vote was actually larger that the Tories) down to the fact that he looked for what people have in common and focused on that. Attlee had been to war with a lot of the people whom he was working for and the feeling was that having been let down by promises after the Great War, people were not going to be put off after being asked to sacrifice for another).
In an age where our politico’s seem to have less in common with ordinary people it might be harder to evoke Attlee’s spirit but have we really looked hard enough?
As well as hugging hoodies, we need to cut white van man some slack. Anyone who I know who drives a white van is working hard at making a living. They could do with a hug too – not a sneer. And progressives should grit our teeth and spend the time to listen and talk them through their concerns.
Pilgrim,
I second your defence of the white van man. Most are working really hard to support themselves and their families.
It is hardly surprising that time pressured citizens absorb the malicious subtext promoted by the ‘popular’ press/radio/TV or that people who have been dumped on resent those who they are continually told are the cause of their struggles. Our bile should be reserved for those charlatans.
It has to be said that joined up thinking in many parts of the UK is in short supply. Take Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand argument, for example, most understand its simple message that by pursuing self-interest in the marketplace you serve the interests of others. What they fail to additionally understand is that hands come in pairs and a successful market also depends on a hand of trust which includes equitable income distribution.