Contagious & Infectious

Contagious (pronounced kuhn-tey-juhs)

(1) Capable of being transmitted by bodily contact with an infected person or object.

(2) Carrying or spreading a contagious disease; bearing contagion, as a person or animal with an infectious disease that is contagious.

(3) Tending to spread from person to person.

1350–1400: From the Middle English, from the Old French contagieus (which endures in Modern French as contagieux), from the Late Latin contāgiōsus, the construct being contāgi(ō) (contagion) (a touching, contact," often in a bad sense, "a contact with something physically or morally unclean, contagion") + -ōsus (from the Old Latin -ōsos from -ōnt-to-s  from -o-wont-to-s, the last form being a combination of two primitive Indo-European suffixes (-went- & -wont- and -to-); the suffix -ōsus was added to a noun to form an adjective indicating an abundance of that noun, much as -εις (-eis) operated in Ancient Greek).  The Latin contingere (to touch) came from an assimilated form of com (with, together) + tangere (to touch) from the primitive Indo-European tag- (to touch, handle).  Originally a technical word purely used in medicine, the figurative sense in which it could be applied to anything apt to spread from one to another (rumors etc) dates from the 1650s.  Contagious is an adjective, contagion, contagionist, contagionism, contagiousness & contagosity are nouns and contagiously is an adverb; the most common noun plural is contagions.

Infectious (pronounced in-fek-shuhs)

(1) Communicable by infection, as from one person to another or from one part of the body to another.

(2) Causing or communicating infection (of a disease) caused by pathogenic microorganism or agent, such as bacteria, viruses, or protozoa.

(3) Tending to spread from one to another.

(4) In international law, capable of contaminating with illegality; exposing to seizure or forfeiture.

(5) Diseased (wholly obsolete).

1535–1545: A compound from Middle English, the construct being infect From Middle French infect, from Latin infectivus & infectus (from the Proto-Italic enfaktos (the construct being in- (not) + factus perfect passive participle of faciō (do, make)), perfect passive participle of inficere & inficiō (dye, taint) + -ious (an alternative spelling of -ous, from the Middle English -ous, borrowed from the Old French -ous and -eux, from the Latin -ōsus (full, full of) and a doublet of -ose in unstressed position; the suffix was used to form adjectives from nouns, to denote possession or presence of a quality in any degree, commonly in abundance).  The sense of "catching diseases, having the quality of spreading from person to person, communicable by infection" dates from the 1540s which by the early seventeenth century had spread to emotions, actions et al; earlier in the same sense were infectious, common by the late fifteenth century and infective from a hundred-odd years earlier.  The most novel adaptation of the word was the sense of "captivating", noted first in the 1650s.  Disinfectant (agent used for destroying the germs of infectious diseases) dates from 1837 from the French désinfectant (1816), noun use of present participle of désinfecter, or else from the adjective in English (by 1827) in the sense of "serving to disinfect".  Infectious is an adjective, infection, infectionist, infectionism, infector & infectiousness are nouns and infectiously is an adverb; the most common noun plural is infections.  

Sort of interchangeable

Increasing the risk of contagion: Lindsay Lohan sneezing.

Except for specialists such as virologists or epidemiologists, contagious and infectious can probably be used interchangeably although, when used in the figurative sense, many style guides suggest contagious should be used if referring to something undesirable whereas infectious should be preferred if speaking of the pleasantly irresistible quality of something.  There’s no etymological basis for this; it’s just a convention of use.  Something contagious is a thing which can be transmitted from one living being to another through direct or indirect contact.  Although infectious is also used to describe the process, it has a slightly different meaning in that it refers to diseases caused by infectious agents (such as or SARS-CoV-2 which causes COVID-19) not normally present in the body.  While the notion of contagiousness dates at least from Antiquity, the idea of infectious diseases is more modern, arising only after the publication of the germ theory of disease, not proposed until the late nineteenth century.  Contagious and infectious are also used to refer to people who have communicable diseases at a stage at which transmission to others is likely.

Reducing the risk of contagion: Lindsay Lohan in facemask (although the twin one-way, non-return valves of these masks limit their effectiveness in reducing the risk of infecting others).

For those in the relevant professions however, the difference between the two is significant.  “Infectious” is a description a disease-causing agent’s (typically a virus, bacterium or parasite) ability to enter, survive, and multiply in a host organism; by definition any infectious disease is caused by the presence and activity of such agents.  The best-known infectious diseases include the various strains of influenza (commonly clipped to “the flu”), tuberculosis (TB), malaria, hepatitis, AIDS (HIV the agent) and of course COVID-19 (Sars-COV-2 the agent).  “Contagious” refers to the ability of a disease to spread from one host (such as a bacterium, human or other animal) to another through a variety of vectors including (1) direct contact (shaking hands, kissing, sexual contact (these sometimes sequential)), (2) indirect contact (such as touching a door knob contaminated with the infectious agent using one’s hand which then introduces the agent to the system via the eyes, nose or mouth), (3) airborne transmission (usually by breathing in droplets when an infected person in close vicinity coughs or sneezes) or (4) through a third party (such as animal scratch or bite).

A contagious disease is a sub-set of infectious diseases which can (some more easily than others) be transmitted from one host to another.  Examples of contagious diseases include measles, chickenpox (and other –pox types), COVID-19 and most commonly, the endemic common cold.  While all contagious diseases are infectious, not all infectious diseases are necessarily contagious; tetanus is an infectious disease caused by the bacterium Clostridium tetani, but it is not contagious from host to host.

Thug

Thug (pronounced thuhg)

(1) A cruel or vicious ruffian or robber; a violent, lawless person (applied almost always to men).

(2) One of a former group of professional robbers and murderers in India, known as the Thuggee, who strangled their victims; one of a band of assassins formerly active in northern India who worshipped Kali and offered their victims to her (sometimes initial capital letter).

(3) In domestic horticulture, an over-vigorous plant that spreads and dominates the flowerbed.

(4) A wooden bat used in the game of miniten, fitting around the player's hand. 

1810: From the Hindi ठग (thag) (used variously to mean swindler; fraud; rogue; cheat; thief), from the Ashokan Prakrit & Marathi ṭhagg & thak (cheat; swindler), from the Sanskrit स्थग (sthaga) (cunning, fraudulent, to cover, to conceal) hence स्थगति (sthagati) (he/she/it covers, he/she/it conceals) from the Proto-Indo-Aryan sthagáti from the primitive Indo-European (s)teg (to cover with a roof).  Thug is a noun & verb, thuggery, thuggism, thuggishness & thugness are nouns, thuggish & thuglike are adjectives and thuggishly is an adverb; the noun plural is thugs.

Thugs under the Raj

Like much colonialism, the Raj was a pretty thuggish business so the antics of the thuggees should at least have been recognizable to the British.  Although known since 1810 as the Thuggees (soon clipped by the colonial administrators to "thugs"), there had been marauding gangs of thieves and murderers who plied their trade along the transport corridors between Indian towns for centuries, the correct Indian name for which was phanseegur (from phansi (noose)), their nefarious activities described in English as early as circa 1665 (and in Hindi texts, from the thirteenth century).

Depiction of Raj-era Thuggees enjoying their work.

The Thuggees roamed the country in bands of a few to some dozens, often disguised as peddlers or pilgrims, gaining the confidence of other travelers who, opportunistically, they would strangle with a scarf, an unwound turban or a noosed cord; the shedding of blood was rare.  While the motive of many was mere plunder, some practiced a certain religious fanaticism, the victims hidden in graves dug with consecrated tools, a third of the spoils devoted to the goddess Kali, worshiped by the gangs.  Under the Raj, the Thuggees were regarded a threat to internal security and from the early 1830s were subject to crackdowns by civil and military authorities; by the century's end, they’d ceased to exist.  Thug’s meaning-shift to the generalized sense of "ruffian, cutthroat, violent lowbrow" began in 1839 and was in use throughout the English-speaking world by the early twentieth century.  In the US, thug became associated with racism, used as a racist epithet applied specifically to African American men to portray them as violent criminals and when used thus, substituted for other racist slurs even by the 1930s were (at least outside the South) becoming socially unacceptable.  However, in what’s became known as "linguistic reclamation" a sub-set of the African American community adopted the word as an identifier, especially in some forms of popular music.

Peter Dutton, who has never denied being a Freemason.

In politics, the label "political thuggery" is liberally applied and while it’s usually a figurative reference, it’s not impossible Malcolm Turnbull (b 1954; prime-minister of Australia 2015-2018) was thinking literally when he described Peter Dutton (b 1970; leader of the opposition and leader of the Australian Liberal Party since May 2022) as “a thug”.  Such use isn’t new, the left-wing press in the UK fond of calling former Conservative Party cabinet minister Norman Tebbit (b 1931) a “Tory thug” which was a little unfair although his demeanour did little to discourage such an appellation.  It’s not always figurative and “political thuggery” can be used of the aggressive or violent tactics employed to secure some political end and this can extend to killings, in some places at scale.  One popular form is to “outsource” the dirty work by having mobs attack opposition rallies or meetings as well as the disruption effect this can provoke the impression one’s opponents are associated with violence, something especially easy to engender if there’s a compliant media anxious to support the campaign.  However, if some prominent figure is murdered, this tends to be called a “political assassination” and because of the potentially bad publicity, it’s a last resort; political thuggery is best when it stops short of murder.  Less bloody but still within the thuggish rubric are electoral dirty tricks including branch-stacking, ballot stuffing, electoral tampering or any amount of deceptive advertising although it’s debatable if all forms of disinformation can truly be called political thuggery because propaganda can mislead while still being truthful.  Usually as clandestine as any operation is the practice of unlawful surveillance or espionage which can extend to wiretapping (including the modern digital equivalent) or infiltration of the organizational structures of one’s opponents and this can require some finesse so thuggery sometimes is a delicate business.  Delicate too is corruption and bribery which is practiced as widely as it is because few tactics are as effective.

Enjoying her work, Lindsay Lohan swings the hammer, New York, 2014.  In 2025, her technique was adopted by some of those attacking random Teslas, the targets apparently thought a satisfactory proxy for Elon Musk (b 1971).  Impressionistically (and predictably), it appears the panels of the Tesla Cybertruck (sold since 2023), most made with a stainless steel alloy, are more resistant to impacts than the company's other models which use a thinner gauge and softer aluminium-alloy.   

In March 2014, Lindsay Lohan was part of a stunt staged as a protest against the cancellation of the CBS sitcom (situation comedy) How I Met Your Mother (2005-2014 and HIMYM to the fans), the concept to destroy a car (decorated in a “HIMYM theme”) using sledge hammers.  The car used was a first generation Volvo V70 Station Wagon (1996–2000 and a companion model to the S70 Sedan) and it’s not clear if there was any significance in the choice of a Volvo or it was just within the project’s budget but it was wise not to have used one of the earlier 140 (1966-1974), 164 (1969-1975) or 240/260 (1974-1993) series Volvos which looked something like the stonework Freemasons would once have rendered when they worked with masonry rather than plotting and scheming; taking to any of those with a sledgehammer would be as likely to damage the tool as the car.  As it was, the less sturdy V70 suffered badly and given the enthusiasm with which Lindsay swung her sledgehammer, it was obviously a task she relished.  Thanks to the Murdoch press, we now know visiting excessive violence upon a Volvo can constitute “thuggery”.

Vulgar

Vulgar (pronounced vuhl-ger)

(1) Characterized by ignorance of or lack of good breeding or taste.

(2) Indecent; obscene; lewd, ribald.

(3) Crude, coarse; unrefined, boorish, rude.

(4) As, the vulgar masses, of, relating to, or constituting the ordinary people in a society (mostly archaic).

(5) Current; popular; common; crude; coarse; unrefined.

(6) As the vulgar tongue, spoken by, or being in the language spoken by, the people generally; the vernacular; colloquial speech (mostly archaic).

(7) Lacking in distinction, aesthetic value, or charm; banal; ordinary.

(8) Denoting a form of a language (applied most often to Latin), current among common people, used especially at a period when the formal language is has become archaic and no longer general spoken use (often with initial capital; usually pre-nominal).

(9) In mathematics, a representation of a fractional number based on ordinary or everyday arithmetic as opposed to decimal fractions.  It refers to one in which two whole numbers (the numerator and denominator) are placed above and below a horizontal line (neither can be zero).  Vulgar fractions are also described as common or simple fractions.  Now rare, in US English, the term vulgar faction is obsolete.

1350-1400: From the early Modern English vulgare, from the vulgāris (belonging to the multitude), from volgus & vulgus (mob; common folk), from the Sanskrit vargah (division, group), from the primitive Indo-European wl̥k.  The construct of vulgāris was vulg(us) + -āris (the suffix a form of -ālis, used to form an adjective, usually from a noun, indicating a relationship or a pertaining to).  As an example of the forks of the root, related European words included the Welsh gwala (plenty, sufficiency), the Ancient Greek ἁλία (halía) (assembly), eilein (to press, throng) & εἰλέω (eiléō) (to compress) and the Old Church Slavonic великъ (velikŭ) (great).  The meaning coarse, low, ill-bred was first recorded in the 1640s, probably from earlier use meaning people belonging to the ordinary class dating from the 1530s.  The derived negative forms such as unvulgar and unvulgarly do exist but are rare to the point of being probably obsolete.  When used in disapprobation, the synonyms include boorish, naughty, tawdry, profane, tasteless, ribald, off-color, disgusting, obscene, impolite, suggestive, indecent, crude, scatological, nasty, filthy & coarse.  As applied to linguists, they include conversational, colloquial, vernacular & folk.  In mathematics, they are common (and most frequently), simple.

Vulgar Latin

Vulgar Latin or Sermo Vulgaris (common speech) is a generic term for the non-standard (as opposed to classical) sociolects of Latin from which the Romance languages developed.  It’s said the works written in Latin during classical times almost always used Classical rather than Vulgar Latin and while that is certainly true of what has survived, the literal volume of ephemeral material written in the vernacular is unknown.  Vulgar Latin was used by inhabitants of the Roman Empire and subsequently became a technical term from Latin and Romance-language philology referring to the unwritten varieties of a Latinised language spoken mainly by Italo-Celtic populations governed by the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire.  Traces appear in some inscriptions, such as graffiti or advertisements but almost certainly the educated population mainly responsible for Classical Latin would also have spoken Vulgar Latin in certain contexts irrespective of their socio-economic background.  In that, things were probably little different then than now, educated people using at least some of the phraseology of the less well-spoken, even if only ironically.

It shouldn’t be confused with "barracks Latin" (originally a casual description of the "rough" language of soldiers and others compared with "polite, educated Latin" of the Roman elite) which is the rendering, with humorous intent, of common English phrases into something which sounds as though it might be Latin.  One of the Monty Python films used the barracks Latin names Sillius Soddus and Biggus Dickus and the best known is Illegitimi non carborundum, an aphorism translating as "don't let the bastards grind you down".  First recorded among soldiers during World War II (1939-1945), an association from which it gained the "barracks" label (although it's not clear in which branch of the military it originated nor even if the coiners were British or American).  It caught on and was famously popularized by Republican candidate Barry Goldwater (1909-1998) during his disastrous 1964 presidential campaign.  Despite the Kennedy assassination, those who voted (and there were many who were prevented from exercising that constitutional right) in the 1964 election represented the United States in the era during which prosperity and optimism were were more widely distributed than at any point in its history.  Vietnam, Watergate, malaise and trickle-down economics would follow.  In the 1964 election, Goldwater lost to President Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US President 1963-1969) in one of the biggest landslides in US electoral history.  It was also one of the more polarized campaigns and the electorate responded better to Johnson's "building a great society" than Goldwater's "fear and loathing" although such were the atmospherics that it's now remembered more as "crooked old Lyndon vs crazy old Barry".  

Campaign buttons used in the 1964 US presidential campaign: Republican Party  (left) and Democrat Party (right).  It wouldn't be for many decades that the red would be standardized as the color of the Republicans and blue for the Democrats (as the result of a somewhat random allocation of colors by the television networks when illustrating results with charts and other graphics.  As well as ones with the "you know he's nuts" rejoinder, the Democrats also issued buttons with "In your heart you know he might" an allusion to Goldwater having offhandedly remarked that he'd be inclined to "...drop a low-yield atomic bomb on Chinese supply lines in Vietnam."  In this atmosphere, the 1964 presidential election was something of a referendum on who should be handed the launch codes for the US nuclear arsenal.

Goldwater hung in his office a sign reminding him of his dictum although his used an embellished barracks Latin: Noli permittere Illegitimatis carborundum (Never let the bastards grind you down).  He always denied being a Freemason and admitted membership only of a fraternal organization known as the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks.  Founded in 1868, the Elks in their early years borrowed many rites, rituals & regalia from the Freemasons but by the 1880s they were beginning to assume an independent identity.  The masonic-style two degrees required for membership were consolidated into one degree in 1890, the apron was discontinued in 1895 (despite some internal resistance), the secret password ceased to be used after 1899 and the badges and secret handshake were abandoned by 1904.

Although an avowed conservative (with at least some of what that implies), he wasn't above using vulgar English if he thought there was a point to be made.  When told Johnson aide Walter Jenkins (1918–1985)  had been arrested in a YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association) toilet in the act of "performing an indecency upon another man", although he declined to use the event to attack the Democrats (some suggesting he had no wish to provoke the Republicans into probing for evidence of homosexuality among his staff), in "off the record" comments to journalists he would complain: "What a way to win an election, communists and cocksuckers".  As it would transpire, others in the Republican machine didn't share Goldwater's reticence and tried to use the arrest as a smear against the administration but the general public reaction was more amused than outraged.  Jenkins paid a US$50 fine for "disorderly conduct".

In the election, Goldwater did however win five states in the South, the best result by a Republican in the region since the reconstruction-era after the US Civil War (1861-1865), a harbinger of the shift in political alignment which would transform the South from a Democratic stronghold (the so-called “Solid South”) into a bastion of Republican strength.  There were many reasons for this and it may be some of them were probably more significant than Goldwater's uncompromising positions on economics and his staunch anti-communism.  Nevertheless, his mystique among American conservatives remains based on the legend of him being the intellectual trailblazer for the “Regan Revolution” and the transformation of the Republican party from a centrist aggregation of the north-eastern establishment into a collective of regional and sectional pressure groups, the factionalism prone to unleashing the forces of extremism which now contest for control.  After Ronald Reagan’s (1911–2004; US President 1981-1989) victory in 1980, one Washington Post columnist noted the feeling of those who had voted for Goldwater in 1964 being one of vindication, regretting only it had taken “…sixteen years to count the votes".  Although it doesn't seem Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) has discussed the matter, when issuing the pardons for the "J6 hostages" (the 1500-odd who stormed the capitol building on 6 January 2021 in an attempt to stop the (2020) election declaration), he may have had in mind old Barry Goldwater's famous words in his acceptance speech (of the Republican nomination for 1964) in San Francisco: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."  Mulling over what he plans to do in his second term (some of which may not be constitutional), he might also recall Goldwater's observation: "I don't necessarily buy the idea that what the supreme court says is the law of the land."  Presumably Mr Trump is also not unaware of one of Richard Nixon's (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974 and a one-time practicing lawyer) Watergate-era doctrines: "If the president does it, then it's legal."   

The vulgar, indecent, obscene, lewd & ribald

Although the technical uses in mathematics and the categorization of Latin strains are long established, the best known and most common use of “vulgar” is to describe things considered indecent, obscene, lewd or ribald.  Given the habits and tastes of men, there’s little shortage of such material thus to be described but shifts in public perception and tolerance means vulgarity is a moving target and there is certainly no consensus, opinions varying not only between but within regions, class, generations and probably just about any segmentation of society yet devised.  The unifying factor though is usually anything involving sex or any conventionally sexualized body parts (such as the foot fetishists free to indulge most aspects of their hobby).  Although in recent decades there’s been something of a retreat, this remains a permissive age as regards what were once considered vulgarities.

Vulgarity remains in the eye of the beholder.

So, something vulgar can sometimes be judged an obscenity and is often lewd or ribald but not of necessity indecent.  The linguistic tussle is because the words “obscene” and “indecent” appear sometimes in legislation and something so defined can even attract criminal sanction whereas anything lewd is subject merely to social disapprobation while ribald carries the connotation of “humorously vulgar”.  Standards shift (and sometimes are nudged along by this force or that) and it is almost always a subjective judgement as Potter Stewart (1915–1985; associate justice of the US Supreme Court 1958-1981) explained in his famous concurring judgement in Jacobellis v Ohio (378 U.S. 184 (1964)): "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within [the shorthand description “hard-core pornography”], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…

That may have been what prosecuting counsel Mervyn Griffith-Jones (1909-1979) had in mind when in R v Penguin Books Ltd ((1961) Crim LR 176) he asked the jury to consider whether DH Lawrence’s (1885–1930) novel Lady Chatterley's Lover (1928) was too obscene to be read by the British, alleging it “…induced lustful thoughts in the minds of those who read it” and begging them to ponder “Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or your servants to read?”.  There was a time when an English jury might have allowed themselves to be told by one of their “betters” what they should be permitted to read but those days were done and the jury (more likely to be servants than masters) had decided they would decide which vulgarities they would tolerate.

Rationale

Rationale (pronounced rash-uh-nal)

(1) The fundamental reason or reasons serving to account for something.

(2) A statement of reasons.

(3) A reasoned exposition of principles, especially one defining the fundamental reasons for a course of action or belief; a justification for action.

(4) A liturgical vestment worn by some Christian bishops of various denominations (now rare), the origin of which is the breastplate worn by Israelite high priests (a translation of λογεῖον (logeîon) or λόγιον (logion) (oracle) in the Septuagint version of Exodus 28)).  The French spelling (rational) of the Latin ratiōnāle was used in Biblical translations.

(5) In engineering, a design rationale is the explicit documentation of the reasons behind decisions made when designing a system; it was once used of what now would be described as a set of parameters.

1650-1660: From the Late Latin ratiōnāle (exposition of principles), nominative singular neuter of ratiōnālis (rational, of reason).  After some early inventiveness, the modern sense "fundamental reason, the rational basis or motive of anything" became standardised during the (1680s).  In the nature of such things, many rationales are constructed ex post facto.  Rationale is a noun; the noun plural is rationales or rationalia.

Prince Metternich & Dr Rudd: illustrating rationale & rational

Portrait of Prince Metternich (1822), miniature on card by Friedrich Lieder (1780-1859).

Rationale and rational are sometimes confused.  A rationale is a process variously of explanation, reason or justification of something that need not be at all rational (although many fashioned ex post facto are re-formulated thus).  To be rational, something must make sense and be capable of being understood by the orthodox, accepted methods of the time.  That something may subsequently be shown to be irrational does not mean it did not at some time appear rational; one can construct a rationale for even something irrational.  To construct a post-Napoleonic Europe, Prince Metternich (Prince Klemens of Metternich-Winneburg zu Beilstein (1773–1859); foreign minister of the Austrian Empire 1809-1848 & chancellor 1821-1848) built a rationale for the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) that was well understood.  It was vision of a Europe, divided between the great powers, in which was maintained a perpetual balance of power which would ensure peace.  That in the two centuries since, the Congress has attached much criticism, largely for imposing a stultifying air of reaction on the continent, does not render the structure irrational nor detract from Metternich’s rationale.  Some historians have come to regard the congress more fondly and while it’s not true the consequence was a century of peace in Europe, it created a framework which meant a good number of decades in that time were notably less blood-soaked than what came before and certainly what followed.

Dr Rudd at the ceremony to be conferred DPhil, University of Oxford, September, 2022.

By 2009, Kevin Rudd ((b 1957); Prime Minister of Australia 2007-2010 & June-September 2013), having realised being prime-minister was a squandering of intellectual talent, embarked on a re-design of relationships in the Asia-Pacific, structured in a way to suit what was self-evidently obvious: he should assume regional leadership.  These things do happen when folk get carried away.  Not discouraged by the restrained enthusiasm for his good idea, Mr Rudd penned one of his wordy rationales which, to him, must have sounded rational but less impressed was just about everybody else in the region including his own cabinet and it’s difficult to recall any hint of interest from other countries.  Mr Rudd quibbled a bit, claiming his use of the word community was just diplomatic shorthand and he wasn’t suggesting anything like what the EU ever was or had become but just better way of discussing problems.  Anyway, it for a while gave him a chance to use phrases like “ongoing and continuing discussions” and “regional and sub-regional architecture” so there was that.  By 2010 the idea had been allowed quietly to die and he had more pressing problems.

Attaining the premiership was Rudd’s mistake.  Had he never achieved to position he’d probably be spoken of as “the best prime-minister Australia never had” but instead he’s among those (and of late there have been a few) remembered as the Roman historian Tacitus (circa 56–circa 120) in the first volume of his Histories (circa 100) wrote of Galba (3 BC–AD 69; Roman Emperor 68-69): "...omnium consensu capax imperii nisi imperasset" (everyone would have agreed he was qualified for governing if he had not held the office).  His background was as a senior public servant who provided advice to others so they could make decisions and he enjoyed a solid career which was clearly well-suited to his skills.  Unfortunately, when occupying the highest political office in the land, he proved indecisive and too often inclined to refer to committees matters which he should have insisted came to cabinet with the necessary documents.  His other character flaw was he seemed unable to understand there was a difference between “leadership” and “command”, unable to realise there was a difference between the structured hierarchy of the public service and the swirling clatter of politics.  His career in The Lodge (the prime-minister’s official residence in Canberra) can be recalled as the Italian historian and politician Francesco Guicciardini (1483–1540) noted of Pope Clement VII (1478–1534; pope 1523-1534): “…knowledgeable and effective as a  subordinate, he fell victim when in charged to timidity, perplexity and habitual irresolution.”  With that, the Italian writer Piero Vettori (1499–1585) concurred, writing: “From a great and renowned cardinal, he was transformed into a little and despised pope”, a sentiment familiar in the phrase repeated in militaries around the world (outstanding major; average colonel; lousy general) to describe that truism in organizational behaviour: “Everyone gets promoted to their own level of incompetence”.

That aphorism was from The Peter Principle (1970), written by Raymond Hull (1919–1985) and based on the research of Laurence Peter (1919–1990), the idea being someone who proves successful in one role will be promoted and if competent there, they will be promoted again.  However, should they fail, within the hierarchy, that is the point of their incompetence, the implication being that the tendency is, as time passes, more and more positions within a corporation will be filled by the incompetent.  The exceptions of course are (1) those competent souls who for whatever reason decline promotion and (2) the habitually successful who will in theory continue to be promoted until they reach the top and, if they prove competent there, this results in the paradox of the typical corporation being run by someone competent but staffed substantially by the incompetent.  In politics, reaching the top means becoming prime-minister, president or some similar office and as Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) described it: "...if he trips he must be sustained. If he makes mistakes they must be covered. If he sleeps he must not wantonly be disturbed. If he is no good he must be poleaxed.  In one of the more amusing recent episodes in politics, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) decided Dr Rudd had been promoted to the relevant point and poleaxed him, a back-stabbing which remains one of the best organized and executed seen in years.  Subsequently, the party concluded his replacement was even more of a dud and restored Dr Rudd to the job, a second coming which lasted but a few months but that was long enough for him to revenge himself upon the hatchet men responsible for his downfall so there was that.       

Still, after his political career (which can be thought a success because he did did reach the top of the “greasy pole” and the delivered the ALP a handsome election victory although their gratitude was short-lived (a general tendency in democracies noted (sometimes gleefully) by many political scientists)) he has been busy, even if the secretary-generalship of the United Nations (UN) (an office which is an irresistible lure for a certain type) proved elusive.  Recently he became Dr Rudd, awarded Doctorate of Philosophy (DPhil) by the University of Oxford.  His 420 page thesis, written over four years, explores the world view of Xi Jinping (b 1953; general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and paramount leader of the People's Republic of China (PRC) since 2013) and the relationship of his ideology to both the direction taken by the CCP and the links with the thoughts (and their consequences) of Chairman Mao (Mao Zedong 1893–1976; chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) 1949-1976).

Dr Rudd says his thesis argues “…there has been a significant change in China’s ideological worldview under Xi Jinping compared with previous ideological orthodoxies under Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao [and summarises] Xi’s worldview as a new form of ‘Marxist-Leninist Nationalism’”.  Dr Rudd says he preferred “Marxist Nationalism” because “the term contains within it three core propositions”: (1) “Xi’s Leninism has taken both the party and Chinese politics in general to the left” (and he defines “left” for these purposes as “…the reassertion of the power of the party over all public policy as well as elevating the position of the individual leader against the rest of collective leadership”), (2) “Xi’s notion of Marxism has similarly taken the centre of gravity of Chinese economic thought to the left” ("left" in this aspect defined as “…a new priority for party-state intervention in the economy, state-owned enterprises over the private sector and a new ideology of greater income equality”) and (3) “Xi has also taken Chinese nationalism to the right (“right” here meaning “a new assertion of Chinese national power as reflected in a new array of nationalist ‘banner terms’ that are now used in the party’s wider ideological discourse.”)  Dr Rudd views these three forces as “…part of a wider reification of the overall role of ideology under Xi Jinping. This has been seen in the fresh application of Marxist Leninist concepts of dialectical materialism, historical materialism, the primary stage of socialism, contradiction and struggle across the range of China’s current domestic and international challenges. The role of nationalism has also been enhanced within Xi’s new ideological framework. This hybrid form of Marxist Nationalist ideology is also being increasingly codified within the unfolding canon of Xi Jinping thought.” 

“Finally, the thesis argues there is a high degree of correlation between these ideological changes on the one hand and changes in the real world of Chinese politics, economic policy and a more assertive foreign policy on the other - including a different approach to Chinese multilateral policy as observed by diplomatic practitioners at the UN in New York.  The thesis concludes these changes in Xi Jinping’s ideological worldview and its impact on Chinese politics and public policy is best explained by a theoretical framework that integrates Authoritarian Resilience Theory, the realist and constructivist insights of the English School of International Relations Theory, and Foreign Policy Analysis.”  Clearly, Dr Rudd thinks the CCP has come a long way since comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) casually dismissed Maoist theory as “ideologically primitive”.

Since March 2023, Dr Rudd has served as Australian Ambassador to the United States, the announcement of the appointment attracting some speculation there may be a secret protocol to the contract, providing for him to report to the prime-minister rather than the foreign minister.  It was mischievous speculation and there has been little but praise for the solid work he has been doing in the Washington embassy.  Dr Rudd’s role attracted headlines in March 2022 when a interview with Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) was broadcast in which the former president was acquainted (apparently for the first time) with some uncomplimentary assessments Dr Rudd had made of him including describing him “the most destructive president in history” and “a traitor to the West”.

Having doubtless heard and ignored worse over the years, Mr Trump seemed little concerned but did respond in his usual style, observing he didn’t know much about Dr Rudd except he’d heard he was “a little bit nasty” and “not the brightest bulb”, adding “he’d not be there long” if hostile to a second Trump presidency.  Trumpologists analysing these thoughts suggested the mildness of the reaction indicated the matter was unlikely to be pursued were he to return to the Oval Office, noting his habit of tending to ignore or forget about anything except actual threats to his immediate self-interest.  After taking office in 2017, when asked if he would pursue the legal action he’d during the campaign threatened against Bill (b 1946; US president 1993-2001) & crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) (mostly on the basis of crooked Hillary’s crooked crookedness), he quickly brushed it off saying: “No, they’re good people” and moving on.  It’s thought Dr Rudd won't end up in the diplomatic deep-freeze, the most severe version of which is for a host nation to declare a diplomat "persona non grata" (the construct being the Latin persōna (person) + nōn (not) + grāta (from grātus (acceptable)), the consequence of which is an expulsion from the territory and the worst fate he may suffer is not receiving an invitation to a round of golf (something unlikely much to upset him).  Others however should be worried, in a second Trump White House, there will be vengeance.

Like "diplomatic toothache" and "null & void", the phrase "persona non gratia" has become part of general language, the utility being in few words describing what would otherwise take many more.  Impressionistically, it would seem "troubled starlets" are more than most declared "persona non gratia".

Rational

Rational (pronounced rash-nl (U) or rash-uh-nl (non-U))

(1) Agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible.

(2) Having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense.

(3) Of a person or their personal characteristics, being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid; healthy or balanced intellectually; exhibiting reasonableness.

(4) Endowed with the faculty of reason; capable of reasoning.

(5) Of or relating to, or constituting reasoning powers.

(6) Proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning.

(7) Logically sound; not self-contradictory or otherwise absurd

(8) In mathematics, capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two integers or (of a function) capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two polynomials.

(9) In chemistry, expressing the type, structure, relations, and reactions of a compound; graphic; said of formulae.

(10) In physics, expressing a physical object.

(11) In the philosophy of science, based on scientific knowledge or theory rather than practical observation.

(12) The breastplate worn by Israelite high priests (historic references only).

1350-1400: From the Old French rationel & rational, from the Middle English racional, from the Late Latin ratiōnālis (of or belonging to reason, rational, reasonable; having a ratio), the construct being ratiōn (stem of ratiō (reason; calculation)) + -ālis.  The –alis suffix was from the primitive Indo-European -li-, which later dissimilated into an early version of –āris and there may be some relationship with hel- (to grow); -ālis (neuter -āle) was the third-declension two-termination suffix and was suffixed to (1) nouns or numerals creating adjectives of relationship and (2) adjectives creating adjectives with an intensified meaning.  The suffix -ālis was added (usually, but not exclusively) to a noun or numeral to form an adjective of relationship to that noun. When suffixed to an existing adjective, the effect was to intensify the adjectival meaning, and often to narrow the semantic field.  If the root word ends in -l or -lis, -āris is generally used instead although because of parallel or subsequent evolutions, both have sometimes been applied (eg līneālis & līneāris).  The use to describe the breastplate worn by Israelite high priests was from the Old French rational, from the Medieval Latin ratiōnāle (a pontifical stole, a pallium, an ornament worn over the chasuble), neuter of the Latin rationalis (rational).  The spelling rationall is obsolete.  Rational is a noun & adjective, rationalizing is a noun & verb, rationalize & rationalized are verbs, rationalism , rationalness & rationalizer are nouns and rationally is an adverb; the noun plural is rationals.  The rarely used adjective hyperrational means literally “extremely rational” and can be used positively or neutrally but it’s applied also negatively, usually as a critique of “economic rationality”.

Rational & irrational numbers illustrated by Math Monks.

In something of a departure from the usual practice in English, “antirational”, “nonrational” & “irrational” (there are hyphenated forms of both) are not necessarily synonymous.  Antirational describes something or someone who is or acts in a way contrary to the rational while arational (often in the form arationality) is a technical term used in philosophy in the sense of “not within the domain of what can be understood or analyzed by reason; not rational, outside the competence of the rules of reason” an applied to matters of faith (religious & secular).  Nonrational (used usually in the hyphenated form) is literally simply the antonym of rational (in most senses) but now appears most often in the language of economics where it’s used of decisions made by actors (individual, collective & corporate) which are contrary to economic self-interest.  Irrational can be used as another antonym but it’s also a “loaded” adjective which carries an association with madness (now called mental illness) while in mathematics (especially the mysterious world of number theory) it’s the specific antonym of the “ration number” and means a “real number unable to be written as the ratio of two integers”, a concept dating from the 1560s.

The adjective rational emerged in the mid-1400s and was was a variant of the late fourteenth century racional (“pertaining to or springing from reason” and of persons “endowed with reason; having the power of reasoning”, from the Old French racionel and directly from the Latin rationalis (of or belonging to reason, reasonable) from ratio (genitive rationis) (reckoning, calculation, reason).  By the 1560s it was picked up in mathematics to mean “expressible in finite terms” before becoming more precisely defined.  The meaning “conformable to the precepts of practical reason” dates from the 1630s.  The adverb rationally was from the same source as ratio and ration; the sense in rational is aligned with that in the related noun reason which got deformed in French.  The noun rationality by the 1620s was used in the sense of “quality of having reason” and by mid-century that had extended to “fact of being agreeable to reason”, from the French rationalité and directly from the Late Latin rationalitas (reasonableness, rationality (the source also for the Spanish racionalidad and the Italian razionalita), from the Latin rationalis (of or belonging to reason, reasonable).  As late as the early fifteenth century racionabilite (the faculty of reason) was in Middle English, from the Latin rationabilitas.

Rational AG's iCombi Pro range: Gas or Electric.

By the 1820s, the noun rationalization was in use in the sense of “a rendering rational, act of subjection to rational tests or principles”, the specific modern sense in psychology in reference to subconscious (to justify behavior to make it seem rational or socially acceptable) adopted by the profession early in the twentieth century.  The verb rationalize (explain in a rational way, make conformable to reason) dates from the mid eighteenth century although the sense familiar in psychology (to give an explanation that conceals true motives) came into use only in the 1920s on the notion of “cause to appear reasonable or socially acceptable” although decades earlier it had been used with the intransitive sense of “think for oneself, employ one's reason as the supreme test”.  The use in psychology endured but “rationalize” also came into use in applied economics with the meaning “to reorganize an industry or other commercial concern to eliminate wasteful processes”.  That seems to have come from US use although the first recorded entry was the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) supplementary edition in 1927.  In this context, it became a “vogue word” of the inter-war years of both sides of the Atlantic although it fell from favour after 1945 as the vogue shifted to “integrate”, “tailor”, “streamline” and that favourite of 1970s management consultants: the “agonizing reappraisal”.  However, in the 1980s & 1990s, “rationalize” gained a new popularity in economics and (especially) the boom industry of financial journalism, presumably because the “economic rationalists” coalesced during the Reagan-Thatcher era as the dominant faction in political economy.

Many have their own favourite aspect of Sigmund Freud’s (1856-1939) theories but one concept which infuses mush of his work is the tussle in the human psyche between the rational and irrational.  Freud’s structural model consisted of the three major components: id, ego & superego, the elements interacting and conflicting to shape behavior and personality.  The id was the primitive & instinctual part containing sexual and aggressive drives; operating on the pleasure principle, it seeks seeking immediate gratification and pleasure.  Present even before birth, it’s the source of our most basic desires and in its purest processes is wholly irrational, focused on wants and not the consequences of actions.

Concept of the id, ego & superego by the Psych-Mental Health Hub.

The rational was introduced by the ego, something which developed from the id and was the rational, decision-making part of the mind which balanced the demands of the id and the constraints of reality.  As Freud noted, implicit in this interaction was that the ego repressed the id which obviously was desirable because that’s what enables a civilized society to function but the price to be paid was what he called “surplus repression”.  That was a central idea in Freud's later psychoanalytic theory, exploring the consequences of the repression of innate, instinctual drives beyond that which was necessary for the functioning of society and the individual: the rational took its pound of flesh.  Discussed in Civilization and its Discontents (1930), “primary repression” was essential to allow the individual to adapt to societal norms and function in a civilized society while “surplus repression” was the operation of these forces beyond what is required for that adaptation.  Freud identified this as a source of psychological distress and neurosis.

Lindsay Lohan’s early century lifestyle made her a popular choice as a case-study for students in Psychology 101 classes studying the interaction of the rational and irrational process in the mind.  Most undergraduates probably enjoyed writing these essays more than had they been asked to analyse Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974), America’s other great exemplar of the struggle.

It was the ego which mediated between the id, the superego, and the external world, making possible realistic and socially acceptable decisions, essentially by making individuals consider the consequences of their actions.  The superego developed last and built a construct of the morality, ethical standards & values internalized from parents, the education system, society and cultural norms; operating on the “morality principle”, the superego one of the “nurture” parts of the “nature vs nurture” equation which would for decades be such an important part of research in psychology.