Forty-eight hours after the dress of disputable hue (and questionable fashion) doused the internet with gasoline and set it on fire, there is at least one useful takeaway: the “controversy” brought the “-gate” suffix to its inevitable nadir. The media’s use of the hashtag #dressgate marked the end of an era in which the last half of the term “Watergate” still had some meaning and dignity. The golden age was the 1970s, when “water” and “gate” were happily married, the power couple that brought down Nixon. After the honeymoon period, “gate” started having some well-intentioned flings on the side (“Contragate,” “Whitewatergate”). Even though it had left its historical roots, “-gate” was still a trusted rhetorical tool for whistleblowers and watchdogs, affixed to the end of words to denote only the most unscrupulous of government conspiracies.
In the 21st century, though, “-gate” has become a catch-all term. “Nipplegate,” referring to Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson’s infamous Super Bowl performance, almost brought us to the breaking point by widening the criteria from “scandal” to “scandalous.” Yet, unlike that incident of pop-culture nudity, there was nothing prurient or deceitful about this dress. Unless the white-gold lobby is engaged in a conspiracy to dissuade us black-blue truthers from accepting cold, hard fact, there was no scandal. Perhaps a Facebook tussle or a Twitter scuffle, but no scandal. We have come to the point where even amusing ocular disagreements are adorned with “-gate” – an unjust fate for a suffix that was once a mark of inexcusable corruption.
We were warned about this, but we just didn’t listen. Back in 2014, Rem Rieder wrote an op-ed in USA Today about the “lazy” and “knee-jerk” use of “-gate” in modern parlance. Gabriel Arana defended the practice in The Atlantic, claiming that our promiscuous use of the suffix demonstrates the fluidity of the English language. He wrote, “Armchair grammarians like your high-school English teacher who think the future of the language is doomed may decry the -gate suffix as tacky and improper, but someday it may be as common and respectable as the verb ‘edit.’”
Call me a stuffy high school grammarian all you want, but Mr. Arana is most definitely mistaken. There is nothing wrong with the fluctuation of word use as long as the term still retains a flavor of its roots. However, it seems like “-gate” no longer has a clear definition after this dress debacle.
We’ve only just recovered after mourning the death of the word “literally,” which literally has no meaning anymore. Must we attend another funeral?
But there, in the distance, some hope: “-gate” still has a glimmer of life. “Bridgegate” was a throwback to the golden era of Woodward and Bernstein. Yet, if we keep abusing “-gate” with nonsense like this dress, it won’t last much longer.