Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In a recent court case in Darlington, a man was convicted of destroying a door with a machete. He was sentenced to some trifling inconvenience, but the magistrates were careful to order the destruction of the machete; clearly they have identified the real culprit, and have ensured no further offences will be possible.

The same thought processes were embedded in English law up to 1846 in the notion of the deodand, some object that caused a death and was therefore forfeit to the Crown.

The fellow who tripped over his shoelace and destroyed some crockery was quick to blame his shoelace; having just converted Ming vases worth £500,000 to fragments worth £diddly he was probably rather shocked and thinking in an instinctive way.

This thought process is sufficiently old and common to have a name. Does anyone know what it is? (I don't think animism quite covers it.)

share|improve this question
3  
Animism certainly doesn't cover deodand, though deodand didn't necessarily blame the object, so much as hold it to be cursed as an effect of the death, rather than the cause, and later to act as a sort of negligence fine. Animism could involve holding something actively to blame, but it's much wider than that. Not knowing of a word, I might well be tempted to stretch deodand into figurative service. –  Jon Hanna Feb 21 '13 at 13:02
2  
Deodand is so clearly what you need that it would be worth attempting to revive the term (C S Forester related it to the Nuremberg Trials in one of the stories in The Nightmare). But the real question is; why did the door have a machete in the first place? –  TimLymington Feb 21 '13 at 18:29
    
@TimLymington Deodands are certainly cool. “Deodands are humanoids which look like handsome, muscular human men, but with "dead black lustreless skin and long slit eyes." They are strong, murderous, and carnivorous creatures, but can be killed with offensive spells, which they fear.” –  tchrist Feb 21 '13 at 21:44
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 5 down vote accepted

The pathetic fallacy is:

the treatment of inanimate objects as if they had human feelings, thought, or sensations

share|improve this answer
    
+1 for the link. I am grateful for the enlightenment. The Tennyson poem (Crossing the Bar) made me cry. :-) –  Kristina Lopez Feb 21 '13 at 20:34
add comment

"Scapegoating" - though usually assigned to a person, can certainly be assigned to an inanimate object. The point is that the blame is passed onto someone/something other than the true perpetrator.

Definition of "scapegoat" from The Free Dictionary.com:

  1. One that is made to bear the blame of others.
  2. Bible - A live goat over whose head Aaron confessed all the sins of the children of Israel on the Day of Atonement. The goat, symbolically bearing their sins, was then sent into the wilderness.

tr.v. scape·goat·ed, scape·goat·ing, scape·goats To make a scapegoat of.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I think the closest one can get is anthropomorphism

the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal or object.

share|improve this answer
    
...or personification. –  Mitch Feb 21 '13 at 21:42
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.