Ok, could you replace Umberto Eco’s use of the word “problematic”?
It seems like just the right word to use here, and in many places. I think some people just dislike the word “problematic” on an emotional level, and conjure up some justification for that emotional reaction.
Ah, I wasn't clear; I was referring to the modern usage which seem to mean "a thing that I see problems with". I'm unfamiliar with the original definition and have never heard it colloquially, so I'm not sure how it's used.
This is an old discussion now, so I won't post too much more here, but in responding to this, I decided to do a bit of research on "problematic", and it seems (from Merriam Webster) that the first use was in 1609, and was indeed exactly the sense we use it today: "posing a problem: difficult to resolve or decide". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/problematic
So let's say Umberto Eco's use of problematic was indeed in this sense (as I haven't heard a very compelling alternative). My point is that _he_ could replace problematic with what he's really trying to say, but of course I can't because I'm not the speaker and I don't know what he means. But I can take a few (bad) guesses:
1) The public's music taste is a problem for him because they don't appreciate the aspects of music that he thinks are most valuable. In this case, the phrase would be "congenial to the unsophisticated taste of the public".
2) The public's taste could be a problem because they want easy, convenient access to music via radio and TV, and Eco believes the true value of music can only be expressed live, where the listener has more agency. The phrase here would be "congenial to the convenience the public demands".
3) Maybe the public just doesn't like classical music, and like rock instead. Maybe ""congenial to the modern music taste of the public" would work here.
I could go on and on: the point is, if this were written instead of spoken, and I were the editor, and circle the work "problematic" in red and write in the margin "What are you really trying to convey here?" It would then be a discussion point with the author to dig into the real point so it could be conveyed clearly. But this is an (translated?) interview, so I don't think that bar is appropriate, but I still think there's ambiguity.
I don’t think you’ve articulated a reasonable or valid complaint against the word “problematic”.
Words convey very little in isolation. When somebody uses the word “problematic”, it’s only in a larger context—sentences and paragraphs, just to start with.
> …I still think there's ambiguity.
I don’t see how this complaint applies to “problematic” but not, say, your use of the word “ambiguity” here. What are you saying is ambiguous or unclear about the word “problematic”? Why are you saying it is ambiguous or unclear?
You are asking the reader to do some of the work and figure out what you mean by that. But that is ALWAYS true, in every sentence, with every word. I think you are basing your complaint against the word “problematic” on some imagined usage of it in a particular context, and without that context, the complaint just isn’t grounded.
Again, to jump in here -- I mean "problematic" as you usually see it on social media/pop culture today. And the issue is that it's kind of a cowardly word. The person wants to make a serious accusation without being too open/bold about it; they're implying, but not saying outright, something potentially damaging/devastating if true, but a bad look for the accuser if false.
Thus, they often should say more precisely what they are implying; often e.g. this person is racist, or a pedophile, or homophobic, etc.
You’re referring to some usage of the word “problematic” and you’re making an assumption that we have enough shared context that I can understand what you’re talking about—but honestly, no, no, I do not understand what you’re talking about.
I think you are just complaining about some specific usage of the word, and there are a lot of words which happen to be used poorly—like “dopamine” which people use to talk about the feeling of scrolling through social media. This isn’t a complaint about the word “dopamine” but a complaint against its misuse!
> And the issue is that it's kind of a cowardly word.
I think, at the core, complaints against the word “problematic” can be boiled down to emotional sentiments like this.
> Thus, they often should say more precisely what they are implying; often e.g. this person is racist, or a pedophile, or homophobic, etc.
Usage of the word “problematic” to describe people is somewhat minor, I think. I definitely didn’t think of this usage. I see the word “problematic” used to describe practices, processes, ideas, situations, etc.
Sometimes, a problem is complicated and multifaceted. You can’t boil it down to a single thing like “pedophilia”. The word “problematic” is there to say “there are problems with this, but those problems are many and don’t boil down to some simple, other word.”
We need both broad and specific words. The correct, specific word does not always exist.
Sure -- to refine even more: I mean "problematic" as it is used in pop culture, social media, today -- often among generally "liberal" leaning folks (which I'd include myself in) and again, I can tell you what they're trying to say is in reference to a public figure or situation that has the appearance of supporting a currently taboo person or subject. And when it's done, I find it to be the kind of thing that SHOULD have more discussion, but doesn't.
I believe the most common example is probably "enjoying art made by someone who did ostensibly bad things," especially where the range of "bad" here is kind of broad.
Like, Dave Chappelle, JK Rowling, Kid Rock, Louis CK, R. Kelly, Woody Allen, Diddy etc. are all people who someone might say it's "problematic" to enjoy their art, but that's a WIDE range.
It seems like just the right word to use here, and in many places. I think some people just dislike the word “problematic” on an emotional level, and conjure up some justification for that emotional reaction.