All of a sudden, boring bureaucracies like the Securities and Exchange
Commission, which have been undermined and underfunded by Republicans, become a
crucial bulwark against the rampaging free-market anarchists on Wall Street.
This is, as Obama says, a fundamental change — but not a radical one.
"Fundamental" but not "radical"? Is this last sentence saying anything meaningful at all?
"Fundamental" shares a root with "foundation." The fundamental attributes of a thing are those which underpin --sit beneath--its true nature.
"Radical" is descended directly from the Latin for "root" ("radix," I think). The root of a thing sits beneath it and anchors it to its true nature.
We might quite fairly, I think, call a foundation the root of a building...
One might argue that "radical" has acquired a sharp and dramatic nuance: Radicals want change, and they want it NOW. On the other hand, is "fundamental" any less sharp and dramatic when we apply it, for instance, to a religion ("[Christian/Islamic/whatever] fundamentalists")?
I'm not convinced that a contrast/comparison between "fundamental" and "radical" is meaningful.
1 comment:
I don't think I agree with your conclusion.
The problem seems to be that both radical and fundamental have their common meanings and then they have much-beloved political meanings. And of course they have root meanings, which apparently are "root" but which I'm not sure are very relevant.
I think the general meaning of radical is "rapid or extreme (usually change)" but the meaning of fundamental is more about the basis or, well, root of something, having little to do with rapid.
The political meaning of radical is to "throw away tradition and make extreme, rapid change" while the political meaning of "fundamental" (usually "fundamentalist") is "go back to tradition no matter how hard that is" which is reactionary -- the very opposite of radical. The confusion between the two is that often fundamentalists call for very rapid and extreme change which one might call "radical" in the general meaning sense of the word but not the political sense.
To summarize...
Fundamental
having to do with root or basis
extremely reactionary
Radical
having to do with root
rapid or extreme
advocating rapid change that breaks with tradition
Now, the phrase in question can mean a whole cloud of things. If you mix and match the various meaning you get some weird combinations.
"Fundamental but not radical changes" might be
1) Changes to the root but not to the root
2) changes to the root but not rapid or extreme
3) changes to the root but not politically radical
4) change that is extremely reactionary but not to the root
5) change tthat is extremely reactionary but not rapid or extreme
6) change that is extremely reactionary but not politically radical
Now, it sucks that we have to guess which meaning the author was trying to convey. But I think we can eliminate 4-6 (especially 6) unless he was talking about some kind of religious cult. And 1 doesn't make any sense at all. That leaves meanings 2 or 3.
I can't decide from the text you quote which it is. But either would actually mean something so I don't agree that the statement is meaningless, just that it's less than clear.
Post a Comment