In the many discussions of the David Schuster ""being pimped out" comment about Chelsea Clinton, I have been surprised by many of the comments and diaries defending Schuster and minimizing the effects of what he said.
One common argument has been that the word, "pimp," when used as a verb is common in modern slang, and does not imply prostitution of some sort. On its surface, this may look like a reasonable argument, claiming a form of the "root fallacy" on the part of those who criticized Schuster's language.
To my knowledge, the term "root fallacy" was coined by the biblical scholar David Barr in his magnificent 1963 work The Semantics of Biblical Language. Barr basically argued against the heavy-handed use of etymology in the interpretation of words and the texts which use them. Simply put, the root fallacy is the presumption that every use of a word contains the full extent of the meaning of its root word. An example could be as simple as when I say that my football team "creamed" another, this statment has nothing to do with the making of an ointment. If I say that I put some cream on the place where I burned my hand, this has everything to do with an ointment. On the other hand, if I say that the butter I am eating is "creamy" this has a little something, but not a lot, to do with an ointment. Keep in mind that because Barr's field was the intepretation of ancient texts, he was dealing with the evolution of the meaning of words over many centuries, not just a decade or two.
Getting back to "pimping," it is true that in contemporary slang this term is used in ways that have little or nothing to do with the act of promoting or profiting from prostitution. Arguing that every use carries that original, root meaning is certainly false. But those defending Schuster have made the mistake of reversing the root fallacy, claiming that because use and meaning of this word have drifted, as with all words, that none of the original meaning of the word can be contained in this particular use. This defense typically contained examples of pimping being used to describe something done with a diary (on a blog) or with a car on the show "Pimp My Ride." These arguments failed to recognize that what removed all, or nearly all, of the original meaning of "pimp" in relation to prostitution was the use of inanimate objects as as the direct object of this verb. Using the word, as Schuster did, with a young woman as the thing being "pimped" brings back some of the original meaning. A related part of James Barr's argument was that the basic unit of meaning in language is not the word but the sentence. A word's meaning is shaped in part by the words that are placed around it.
Of course, Schuster did not mean that Chelsea Clinton performing sexual acts for money or that her mother was organizing and profiting financially from this activity. He was using the word in a more figurative or metaphorical sense, but that is exactly why metaphors work, because of the powerful connotations of the object or activity to which something is being compared.
Let me be clear: I think the suspension of Schuster is exactly right. He should not be fired, because this is not a pattern of behavior for him. He should be punished severely enough that it does not become a pattern. If you want to see this nailed on the head, see Keith Olbermann's comments from last night's show. There are other personalities on MSNBC who have exhibited a pattern of this kind of behavior, and they should be dealt with accordingly, but this does not absolve Schuster. I like David Schuster. That makes this really hard. When Tucker Carlson says something like this I am disgusted, but I am neither suprised nor disappointed. It is exactly what I have come to expect from him. I was surprised and disappointed by Schuster. I hope he returns to the air as a better reporter.
Those of us who are criticizing Schuster and supporting the supension are not guilty of the "root fallacy." We are not arguing that all uses of the word "pimp" necessarily carry all aspects of its initial meaning. We are arguing that when this word is used about a young woman, it carries part of that meaning, and it is inappropriate language for use by a reporter on a news network.