Musings on "Representation"

Definitions, even of common words, play a major role in the politics and jurisprudence of the country.  Those of us old enough to remember the Clinton administration will recall the notorious quibbling over the word “is.”  Of particular interest of late is the fact that when a law offers a definition of a term, it is that definition that must be considered, irrespective of what is termed “common parlance.”  Thus, determining what is meant by “so” became an issue in Van Buren v. United States three years ago, and a 90-year-old statute’s definition of “machine gun” was the determining factor in the recent Garland v. Cargill case.

There are also, of course, many words that have multiple meanings.  In one of the first essays in this iteration of my blogging life, after Curmie moved over from LiveJournal (yes, I’m old), I wrote about the word “authority,” noting that it can refer to someone with expertise or someone with power.  A glance at virtually any university, corporation, or government agency will amply demonstrate that these two definitions are at least as likely to be in conflict as in accord.

Curmie has been thinking lately about another word (and its variations) that carries multiple, often contradictory, definitions: representation.  Generally, the term is presented in a positive light, as, for example, we hear of black or female children seeing cinematic superheroes (and -heroines) who resemble themselves.  Of course, this impulse can be carried too far, to re-write history or diverge from the character description of the original author, but the concept remains a new positive.

Along these lines, representation is also used to describe the manner in which a subject is communicated to the reader or viewer.  Consciously or unconsciously, media reports on virtually any topic will suggest that a particular perspective is accurate or true.  But no comprehensive picture can ever emerge.  We have neither the time nor the inclination to present or to receive all the details.  Inevitably, something that the receiver might consider important is omitted by the sender.  This could, but need not, be the product of malice or mendacity; it could be that the sender just didn’t regard that detail as essential.

Back in the 18^th century, one of the rallying cries of the nascent revolutionary movement in the American colonies was “no taxation without representation.”  The slogan suggested, with no little justification, that the people subject to laws, taxation, etc., ought to have a role in determining the policies under which they would live.

That said, Curmie’s Representative, i.e., Congresscritter, was for almost two decades Loony Louie Gohmert, one of the dimmest bulbs ever to flicker in the legislative firmament.  Was I represented by him?  Well, to the extent that, thanks in large part to Tom DeLay’s adept gerrymandering, Gohmert got voted into office in the congressional district I inhabit, yes.  But to suggest that he represents anything close to Curmie’s value system, social conscience, or political predilections is absurd.

Back when the Curmie Awards were a thing, the whole idea was to call attention to the worst representatives of the educational profession, not to demean educators in general, but indeed to suggest that the Curmie nominees were outliers whom I did not wish to represent me or the thousands of other teachers at all levels who are just trying to teach our respective students the course material in the most effective manner we can.

Similarly, especially as the 2024 election campaigning really ramps up (there has been little doubt this year who the presidential nominees would be, more’s the pity), Curmie notes an upswing of people outside a group deciding (worst case scenario at all times, of course) what people inside that group believe.  And here’s where the notion of representation kicks in.

Curmie, rightly or wrongly, prides himself on being an independent thinker.  His Political Compass score places him securely in the Libertarian Left, but he also notes that issues such as gun control or DEI make it difficult to earn both of those descriptors simultaneously. 

More to the point, Curmie has no desire to be represented by the likes of Jamaal Bowman, he of the fire alarm scandal, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who issued a screed on Son-of-Twitter condemning the audacity of a lifelong Democrat active in party politics for decades to challenge Bowman in a primary and… get this… successfully raise money to do so!  (Would it be impertinent to note that AOC got her congressional seat after defeating a 10-term Democratic Rep in a primary?)

But neither does self-described progressive Curmie want to spend all his time distancing himself from those at the fringe of his belief system, just as he suspects that his conservative friends would be quite happy not to be associated with Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert, and would cheerfully not have to keep distancing themselves from the wackadoodles.  But the fact is, those folks do in some sense represent us, because we actually do agree with them on some things.

Ultimately, of course, Curmie’s desire for representation is a function of his ideas, not of his membership in a particular class of people.  In today’s world, the perfect candidate is unlikely to be there, so we’ll just lower the expectations a little.  Show me that you’re not a sociopath, an idiot, or a pathological liar, and we can talk.  That doesn’t leave a lot of candidates on either side of the aisle, alas.