This first came to mind when I read ads for lumber in the paper as a boy. “Nominal measurement 2 inches by 4 inches” the small print said. What? Yes, a 2 x 4 is simply called a 2 x 4. In reality it is a 1 1/2” by 3 1/2” board. It is a nominal 2 x 4 – “in name only.”
No one really cares about this, of course. No one says the lumber man is lying. The expression has worked itself into the vernacular by very natural means. Lumber is milled as a 2x4, dried and then milled again so the final size is an actual 1.5 inches by 3.5 inches.
But the issue is ever with us. What is the difference between what I call a thing and what the thing actually is – its ontology, or being? Is it what I say it is, or does it have substance in and of itself?
This problem sometimes unsettled me as a boy. I would hear a word – almost any word: maybe the word “school.” Having heard it a zillion times, the sounds of it and its common use would suddenly seem divorced from anything real. It felt like a nightmare: the world had no real meaning. It was all fake, reduced to sounds coming from my mouth.
I was grappling – unknowing – with this basic idea that a thing is what it is, no matter what you call it. Words are necessary so we can talk about reality, but they have no substance in themselves beyond the actual meaning agreed upon. If the expression “school” always means a place where students and teachers gather and etc., well and good. The word has meaning, borrowed from that to which it refers and given credibility through common agreement. In academic jargon, referent and sign are agreed.
Enter Elon Musk and anyone else who falls into the unlucky category of making a particular sign with their arm. “He made a Nazi salute” we are told, and large swaths of the electorate are dumbfounded or reduced to peels of laughter. “He did what?!” I am in this category. It never entered my mind that he was making such a salute.
But if I step outside of my own mind I see there is a large swath of the electorate who think the occasion of Musk's expression was not unlike a rally where folks are eager for things the Nazi's were fond of: group-think, un-bridled dominance, blind allegiance to their leader, restoring the Fatherland to greatness. In such a rally someone – an abject fool, in my view – might be inclined to make a Nazi salute and mean it as such.
I remain dumbfounded by the idea Musk was doing this.
One could argue, of course, that the salute is primal; that a society who never heard of nor witnessed the Nazi salute might use it in a given context to mean what salutes mean: respect, allegiance, obedience, even adoration. And this brings further the question of what a salute really is supposed to mean. When the common private salutes an officer, when a letter begins with a salutation, when a military escort salutes a government leader -- what is the meaning?
Elon was saluting the crowd. He was saying "thank you, I honor you, I appreciate you, I respect you." He needed something to add to his words, so he used a hand expression from heart-to-crowd that meant exactly that to him and, he assumed, to onlookers. The fact it looked like a Nazi salute to some can hardly be helped, and should not matter anyway.
The minimum of charity insists we try to discern what a person had in mind. Was Elon imbibing the spirit of a Nazi rally?
This brings us back to nominalism. Is a salute “Nazi” because it entails the lifting of the arm and shaping of the hand in a particular way and at a given angle? Or is it “Nazi” if it shares in various external similarities with a Nazi rally? Strict nominalism says all that we need is the gesture: if it fits the name, that's what it is. The corrective notion – ontology – goes to the actual rally and claims there were various components that made it “Nazi-like,” lending credibility to the idea Musk intended the Nazi salute.
Is this possible? I suppose, but I simply don't believe it. I think the man has enough sense to avoid an actual Nazi salute, and accusations otherwise seem, at minimum, quite uncharitable. I have tried to understand where others are coming from and have no doubt let my own bias color the effort. I began by wondering if Musk's accusers were mere nominalists but I have concluded they believe the rally was indeed Nazi-like. This is distressing.
We have reached a place in our national discourse where major press organs think a hand-gesture is Nazi because they believe the Nazi 'spirit' was at the very inauguration rally. And they mean it. Meanwhile, an enormous portion of the electorate deeply identifies with that rally. And they mean it. When you say Elon gave a Nazi salute you say that those people – representative of that electorate – were Nazi's.
Such a situation is untenable and portends the end of charity in public discourse. And while such a conclusion is deeply painful, I am a slave to hope, to the idea our nation can still be good and strong; that, in the end, it is our homes and communities that determine that, not Washington or press organs.
To paraphrase an ancient oracle, “A nation can only be great when it learns to be good.” Which is to say there is no true greatness without goodness. Otherwise it is just a name, or a salute: a word with no substance. I want the real thing.
A good start would be daring to believe that those who won the election are not Nazi's.