Abuse of Terms: "Monarchy is Archaic/anachronistic"

xkcd: Duty Calls

It is often a mistake to debate anyone too seriously over the internet. In a situation where you can't be sure how serious they are being and where your opponent can circle around and use a point you dealt with 30 posts ago it consumes too much time to be healthy. That said, there is one particular 'argument' used by republicans that shows up far too often and ought not to.

---

So. In part one of what was going to be a four part series of articles until I decided to be lazy and just do one I will look at two terms that are so heavily abused by republicans it may constitute an attack on the very act of communication. Anyone who has seen the posts of the average republican on the internet will have heard this argument; "The monarchy is archaic/anachronistic and we should therefore ditch it".

'Archaic' and 'anachronism' are not words you hear everyday so it may be helpful will to brush up on their meanings.

Archaic

1.A marked by the characteristics of an earlier period; antiquated: an archaic manner; an archaic notion.
2.A (of a linguistic form) commonly used in an earlier time but rare in present-day usage except to suggest the older time, as in religious rituals or historical novels. Examples: thou; wast; methinks; forsooth.
3.A forming the earliest stage; prior to full development: the archaic period of psychoanalytic research.
4.A (often initial capital letter) pertaining to or designating the style of the fine arts, especially painting and sculpture, developed in Greece from the middle 7th to the early 5th century b.c., chiefly characterized by an increased emphasis on the human figure in action, naturalistic proportions and anatomical structure, simplicity of volumes, forms, or design, and the evolution of a definitive style for the narrative treatment of subject matter.
5.A primitive; ancient; old: an archaic form of animal life.(Dictionary.com)

Anachronism

1.B the representation of an event, person, or thing in a historical context in which it could not have occurred or existed
2.B a person or thing that belongs or seems to belong to another time: she regards the Church as an anachronism 
(Dictionary.com) 

Right off the bat definitions 2.A and 1.B have no relevance to this debate. The terms of monarchy, and monarchy itself are common in society and culture. The biggest, positive, events to capture the world's attention in recent years have been the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the birth of Prince George. 4.A refers to an art period and is even less relevant.

1.A and 5.A when applied to monarchy have the difficulty of also encapsulating democracy, citizenship, and republicanism as well. All four terms have an ancient pedigree and can be labelled as having "the characteristics of an earlier period". Let's not forget that when barbarians were pouring into the Roman Empire they had at their head elected chieftains. These four terms could each be labelled archaic with good justification.

3.A has a fairly obvious issue when applied to monarchy: it ignores that the conceptions of monarchy have changed over time. The medieval conception of monarchy would be quite alien to Alexander the Great just as the modern conception of monarchy would be alien to a medieval monarch. And this is before we even start discussing different conceptions of monarchy between East and West! 

A more subtle issue with definition 3.A is that it presumes that monarchy is some stepping stone to republic. This line of thinking has some philosophical basis as many philosophers have ordered government types into 'better' or 'worse' categories and even proposed a natural transition between them. But if this is the route republicans want to go they will have to acknowledge that many of the very philosophers they could quote might also be labelled archaic (when they aren't labelling monarchy the best form of government!). It further implies that a republic is the ultimate stage of government; an arrogant claim if ever there was one.

2.B is a bit firmer ground for republicans to stand on. It is completely subjective, of course, but it at least lets them make an argument. But subjective arguments are about as useful as a cat, at noon, in the summer: not going anywheres fast. A republican that wants to go this route can simply be told that the Canadian Monarchy is a 'modern institution' and you'd be on even ground.

Ultimately these terms are used because the speaker or writer feels they stand on their own as an argument. These terms sound bad and they hope that is enough. If something is old of course you get rid of it? Its the modern way. That old tie? Garbage! That iPod? Time to upgrade! It is a consumerist mindset applied to government. That this type republican tend to disregard whether monarchy works or not (seriously, they rarely consider it) puts them in a category of people who want change for the sake of change. Because change is 'good'. But simply saying something is 'good' or 'bad' is not an argument, its an opinion. And dressing the word 'bad' in whatever fancy negative-sounding term you dig out of the dictionary doesn't make it a better argument.

There are republicans that can make coherent arguments in support of their position. But if the they start off with "The monarchy is archaic/anachronistic and we should therefore ditch it" you are not dealing with that kind of republican. You are dealing with a republican who has an emotional dislike of the monarchy.

Loyally Yours,
A Kisaragi Colour