Not Too "Bright"

I didn't mean to launch a name game yesterday with my remarks about Daniel Dennett and the "brights" label, but that's what seems to have happened. More than fifty comments came in, many of them suggesting various ways in which atheists ought to be relabled: "humanist," "freethinker," and many others, including some amusing ones like "Godless Smartboys" (which, it was quickly pointed out, excludes female atheists).

What was missing to all of this excitement, of course, was anything other than a gut feeling as to what would work, and what wouldn't work, from a public relations standpoint. Everyone had an opinion, no one had any data. That's perfectly fine for comments on a blog, but it certainly won't do in the realm of serious political strategy.

And that's what mystifies me so much about the "brights" label, which was prominently launched on the op-ed page of the New York TImes. Although it had originated elsewhere, the term's use was advocated by two men who love science--Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett--but who, on this matter, seem not to have applied the requisite amount of critical thinking. Let's say it plainly: The "brights" label backfires dramatically, reinforcing negative stereotypes about atheists (that they think they're smarter than everyone else, than all the "dims").

"Bright" defenders can holler all they want that this wasn't what they intended, but intentions don't matter when you're playing the frame game. What matters is how your "frame" works on the minds of an audience, and here, the frame "bright" was obviously doomed from the start.

I emphasize all of this, incidentally, for a reason. The defenders of science are, in my view, getting their clocks cleaned right now in the political arena. Atheists, meanwhile, are a political nonentity. We're talking about very smart people here, but when it comes to politics, they don't have a clue. And if there's any hope of this situation ever changing, I think we have to realize that mere cerebral intelligence doesn't cut it--you really have to have strategic intelligence as well.

The "brights" episode, for me, demonstrates a clear case in which intellectual brilliance was combined with some serious strategic ineptitude.

More like this

Again, you are absolutely correct on the word "brights". But we should also be careful about conflating defenders of science with atheists/brights/free-thinkers/whatever.

Those are two very separate battles, encompassing different (if overlapping) groups, that are hard enough individually.

I think it is useful to recall that the homosexual community appropriated the wholely inappropriate term "gay" many years ago. Like "bright," it carries with it host of semantic implications that make no sense ("straight" people are less happy than gay homosexuals?) and effectively ended the traditional use of the term.

This seems to be precisely the case with "bright." Probably not a bright idea, but it certainly could catch on if enough people adopt the term. Just because it's not a good idea doesn't mean it won't succeed. And if it does, we'll all have to get used to it, whether we like it or not. Just like we did with "gay."

James, by your reasoning any name could "catch on" with time and if enough people adopt it. But that can't be right. Companies spend millions on consultants to come up with names like Athlon or Viagra because they know that some names catch on much better than others. I'd suggest that there's a large set of neutral words that can be used but some get you into trouble and I think "bright" is, as Chris says, just asking for it. I mean why not just call them the "Smarts"? Or do you think that would eventually catch on strategically too?

Perhaps what the scientific community needs is more stupid people defending it. No, seriously. One problem with people like Dawkins and Dennett is that they know they're smarter than the vast majority of other people and have a hard time doing anything but showing it. Furthermore, in a university-style intellectual setting, showing that they're smarter than other people is pretty much what academics do for a living. So of course they'd be blind to the possibility that a term such as "bright" could possibly be perceived as insulting, even (or perhaps particularly) when so many of their less-brilliant friends and acquaintances told them so.

If science were defended by more average scientists, or perhaps even below-average ones, it might be possible to get across the notion that evolution and other scientific discoveries aren't just a matter of some genius having a revelation on a mountaintop, but of hard slogging and evidence that just wears you down with its volume and undeniability. As it is, the debates all seem to the layperson to be arguments between authority figures: "Believe me because God says so!" "No! Believe me because I'm smart!"

As a scientist and an athiest I can't believe this is the first I have heard of this debate. I fail to see why there needs to be another word for an athiest, particularly, why you would want to appropriate and give new meaning to an existing word?

What Chris is saying is that nobody likes to be talked down to. Being right is not enough. You have to be able to talk with people who may not have a high IQ because they still matter. Yes, this can be frustrating, but it is absolutely necessary for the PR of science.

Chris, I totally agree with your marketing point. In the mean time though, I still think it a powerful & proved mechanism to embrace terms used as insults. From the discussion of the previous post, the only two useful suggestions by this criteria are "atheist" and "humanist". The second might be moderately better because of the religious/agnostic issue. But the point is, *any* term used as an insult but that is accurate can be embraced and thus becomes less effective.

By Joanna Bryson (not verified) on 01 Mar 2006 #permalink