Status: 02.08.2024 08:36
Do you also notice this? The word “iconic” has had an incredible career, it is very popular. What is behind it? Ulrich Kühn thinks:
I constantly hear that language is important. Language shapes consciousness, which is why thinking, writing and speaking require the maximum level of sensitivity, a level that only the most sensitive can muster, those who explain to others that language… you know.
I’m inclined to think that’s OK, there’s nothing wrong with being sensitive to words. But how can you pull off this feat of feeling the language with all your devotion and mindfulness, while at the same time keeping one index finger free to be able to teach others about language when necessary? That certainly takes a lot of energy. Perhaps that’s why people who are sensitive to language are sometimes so sensitive to it, and sometimes, surprisingly, not at all.
From characters to coffee cups – suddenly everything is “iconic”
For example, the word “iconic” has had a global career that would have been impossible if language-sensitive people hadn’t helped. There is nothing left that hasn’t been declared “iconic”, from characters to coffee cups.
As soon as the bloody fist photo was released after the assassination of Trump, everyone agreed that the image was “already iconic”. Because everyone was still open-mouthed, they found it somehow fitting – after all, it is a picture. But what is the implication here? The implication is that at the moment of the event and its depiction, the historical significance can be expressed in words. It’s a bit like when a football player whispers into the microphone after winning a game that he has just “made history”. A little presumptuousness included.
Of course, there are plenty of historical examples to hand that are supposed to prove that the photo is really “iconic”. But wait: aren’t those who declare the Trump photo to be an icon following the inner move that has taken hold of Trump supporters, who are glorifying their survivor as the Messiah? It feels stupid to remind you of this, but icons were images of saints or cult images. Icons of Christ, icons of Mary – important especially in the Orthodox Church. The word icon for cult image, of ancient Greek origin, was probably borrowed from Russian into German in the 19th century. From Russian, help! If the language-sensitive people hear that!
Self-aggrandizement or thoughtlessness?
It is not logical to constantly call for linguistic sensitivity or “linguistic disarmament” while reinterpreting the privilege of commenting as a license to throw around high-sounding adjectives in order to mark things or people as incredibly important. Declaring something “iconic” in such contexts is not possible without self-aggrandizement. Or without thoughtlessness – because you are repeating slang that everyone else repeats without first asking what it is expressing.
The best Olympic photos? Of course “iconic”. Poor Taylor Swift? Of course an “iconic” pop star. Characters, objects, Trump with blood and fist – everything becomes “iconic” indiscriminately. Because we won’t do anything less. But why on earth?
Maybe that’s why: people no longer believe in the old icons, no longer want to believe at all – and yet they create new ones. Politicians, pop stars, Olympians, and if in doubt, a hat. A reason to get upset? No, but interesting: we still worship even though we supposedly don’t want to anymore. Religious without religion. The conversion of the icon into a shell: the result is pseudo-religion that is secular and trivial.
Or something like that, I’m still thinking about it. Of course, with maximum language sensitivity.
Editor’s note: Dear reader, the separation of opinion and information is particularly important to us. Opinion pieces such as this commentary reflect the personal view of the author. Comments can and should take a clear position. They can trigger agreement or disagreement and thus stimulate discussion. In this way, comments are deliberately distinguished from reports that are intended to provide information about a matter and present different viewpoints in as balanced a manner as possible.
This topic in the program:
NDR Kultur | Afterthought | 02.08.2024 | 10:20 a.m.
