The construction "noun + phobic" supposedly meaning "irrational fear of x,y,z noun" is quite widespread in "psychiatry", psychology, the "social sciences" and political culture and politics too.
It is a dubious construction, borrowed from the dubious pseudo-science of psychiatry for dubious and sometimes questionable motives.
Possibly it's first use was in "hydrophobic" with relation to a strong and irrational - possibly "irresistible" - fear of water - an undoubted psychological symptom of the physical illness of rabies. It seems that this use dates back to about 1759 and that the word also meant "madness".
Now a point to make straight away with regard to political language is that "disliking or disagreeing with something" simply cannot be the same as being scared of it or having a strong (and irrational) fear of it.
For example, if I genuinely don't particularly like the taste of carrots when I eat them and I spit them out, I cannot possibly be "carrotphobic."
And of course an obvious point that follows from this is that therefore anyone can apply this term to someone who opposes them.
For example, if someone is a socialist and there is someone who disagrees with them,then the socialist (whatever that term means) can conceivably call his opponent "socialism-phobic" if he chooses to; and could obviously use this as a tactic rather than say arguing with his opponent.
Kenan Malik has written an article questioning among other things whether there really is such a thing as "islamophobia"..
http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/prospect_islamophobia.html
Thomas Szasz makes the point (in his brilliant set of esssays "The Medicalisation of Everyday Life" (2007)) that until about 1970 homosexuality or homosexual behaviour was an "illness" - whereas now aversion to homosexuality is - if not an illness - stigmatized, condemned and given a quasi-medical term - "homophobia".
"The Medicalisation of Everyday Life" (2007) is a very important set of essays that deal with
philosophical issues as well as the lie of "mental illness."
The breadth of learning is very wide.
It is a loss and a disgrace that this collection is not more highly regarded and read.
.....
It is a dubious construction, borrowed from the dubious pseudo-science of psychiatry for dubious and sometimes questionable motives.
Possibly it's first use was in "hydrophobic" with relation to a strong and irrational - possibly "irresistible" - fear of water - an undoubted psychological symptom of the physical illness of rabies. It seems that this use dates back to about 1759 and that the word also meant "madness".
Now a point to make straight away with regard to political language is that "disliking or disagreeing with something" simply cannot be the same as being scared of it or having a strong (and irrational) fear of it.
For example, if I genuinely don't particularly like the taste of carrots when I eat them and I spit them out, I cannot possibly be "carrotphobic."
And of course an obvious point that follows from this is that therefore anyone can apply this term to someone who opposes them.
For example, if someone is a socialist and there is someone who disagrees with them,then the socialist (whatever that term means) can conceivably call his opponent "socialism-phobic" if he chooses to; and could obviously use this as a tactic rather than say arguing with his opponent.
Kenan Malik has written an article questioning among other things whether there really is such a thing as "islamophobia"..
http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/prospect_islamophobia.html
Thomas Szasz makes the point (in his brilliant set of esssays "The Medicalisation of Everyday Life" (2007)) that until about 1970 homosexuality or homosexual behaviour was an "illness" - whereas now aversion to homosexuality is - if not an illness - stigmatized, condemned and given a quasi-medical term - "homophobia".
"The Medicalisation of Everyday Life" (2007) is a very important set of essays that deal with
philosophical issues as well as the lie of "mental illness."
The breadth of learning is very wide.
It is a loss and a disgrace that this collection is not more highly regarded and read.
.....