The tug-of-war between upper and lower cases

A balance has to be struck between so many capitals [upper case letters] that the eyes dance and so few that the reader is diverted more by style than by substance

The above is from The Economist’s Style Guide, proclaiming itself as the Bestselling Guide to English Usage, Eighth Edition.

Tell me, did your eyes dance reading “Best … Edition”? Mine did, with as many as six upper case letters to lead off six of the seven words. I almost felt I was reading some archived material from a century or two ago, when people had this obsession about starting nouns, of whatever kind, with capitals. Those were the days of capitals ruling. It had its comeuppance.

How would the same seven words read without the upper case letters? Like your teenage daughter’s SMSs: “bestselling guide to english usage, eighth edition.” Now, it is the reign of the lower cases.

It is not in English alone this tug-of-war is played out. Think about religion. At first glance, ignoring the rule for capitalizing names of religions, is there a difference between christian and Christian?

My friend, with whom I share the date of birth (including the year!) Bob Crovo says yes. His argument is any Christian who supports Ron Paul, the Libertarian’s Libertarian, must be a Christian. That is, to clarify the statement, he or she cannot be a christian. I suspect that by christian, he means those who follow what Jesus could be reasonably assumed to have said, considering humanity inclusively, vis-à-vis St. Paul’s exclusionary Christianity. Followers of Liberation Theology may fall through the cracks – taking St. Paul but interpreting him through Him, so to say.

See the ironic juxtaposition – Christians take St. Paul as is whereas christians interpret the lowercase “him” through the uppercase “Him”!

This MS Word disease of trying to capitalize christian every time I start the word with a lower case afflicts all other religions – Muslims, Jews (the Kosher-food eating ultra-orthodox are the capitalized Jews), Hindus, and even Buddhists (if you would allow yourself to go back to the middle of last century, the Sinhalese majority co-opted Buddhists in their cause against the non-Buddhist non-Sinhalese minority).

What is surprising is that Hinduism, even when there is no single Book (discount the spuriously exalted position given to Bhagvad Gita), has been infected. All those noble sentiments like “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” have proven to be ineffective in developing a thinking founded in universality, even between its own adherents not to mention people beyond. Therefore, the upper v. lower tug-of-war is substrate neutral, whether a religion has a single Book, multiple Books or no Book at all.

The religious eyes cannot but dance, with all those exclusivity-obsessed uppercases.

When religion has been infected, can atheism be far behind? A number of religionists have accused Richard Dawkins of preaching atheism. In the current discussion, it means that Dawkins is a capitalized atheist – Atheist (more like ATHEIST?!). I too belong to that tribe and proud of it. It is only that not many people know that tidbit about me, and even if they do, they would not care, I suspect.

What is the lowercase atheism? Ask the uppercase Atheist – Dawkins. Not in so many words, but for him the agnostics are the lowercase atheists.

From the above, if you conclude that atheism is religion after all, then you have not understood the critical differentiator here. The lowercase religion tries its hand at integration and so does uppercase Atheism, with more confidence. However, while the uppercase religion de-universalizes humanity, a similar charge cannot be thrown at lower case atheism.

While Atheism enables one to glide ever so smoothly amidst humanity, Religion, as said earlier, forces the eyes to dance as one tip toes through.

In English writing I may look for balance between lower and uppercasing as the style guide advises, but in life, leave me to enjoy capitalized Atheism.

Raghuram Ekambaram