Around this time of year there is often some debate as to how one should name events, such as office parties. There are some — often motivated by what could be termed a general secularism — who argue that it is inappropriate to refer to any such events as “Christmas” parties. To do so, they claim, would be to automatically and inappropriately associate the event with the Christian religion.
The idea behind such a position is understandable. One would not want groups of people feeling excluded from an activity because they don’t identify with the context in which it is framed. Similarly, where public money is involved, as in the case of universities, there is no place for one group being preferred over another.
However, is it actually the case that calling an event a Christmas party means it is automatically associated with the Christian religion? At the most simplistic level, the answer must be yes — the clue is in the name. But to take such a view would very much ignore or misunderstand the realities of language and culture.
Words and ideas evolve constantly as the world and the people in it change. Cultures borrow from each other as they develop. What meant one thing at one time can very quickly come to mean something entirely different.
For example, consider the form and content of the Christian festival of Christmas itself. The idea of a virgin birth on the 25th of December is identical to the pre-Christian birth myth of the Persian/Roman god Mithras, with that myth being markedly similar to the even older story of the origins of Zoroaster (virgin births also being credited to Krishna and Quetzalcoatl, amongst others).
The date itself is a few days after the winter solstice, an event associated with some form of festival in a large proportion of the world’s cultures, past and present. In particular, the Roman world, in which early Christians lived, celebrated the major festival of Saturnalia at this time.
Just as Christmas marks a new beginning for Christians, these winter festivals generally involve ideas of renewal and rebirth as people look forward to the return of life in the spring.
As final examples, it is from such pagan winter festivals that we get the traditional Christmas trees that we put in the corner of our rooms, as well as the mistletoe that hangs from our ceilings. The Christmas festival thus provides a perfect illustration of the way in which ideas and practices are borrowed by groups of people in order to create something new.
“Christmas” as a prefix should also be seen in this light, at least in the context of office parties and suchlike. Whilst it may once have referred to a religious event, the phrase has evolved to mean something quite different — and entirely secular — to the majority of people.
When we hear it, we do not necessarily think of church: we are more likely to think of tinsel and presents and perhaps a little too much mulled wine.
Of course, language is not a zero-sum game, and the phrase can continue to have religious connotations for those who are members of the Christian religion. There is no need for a battle of meanings — our language is adaptive enough to accommodate them all, just as we are sensible enough to identify the correct one through context.
It is this flexibility that makes language so wonderful, and this potential plurality of concurrent viewpoints that any true secularist should be seeking to advance.
Indeed, it could be argued that by taking the somewhat retrogressive stance of fixed meanings, those who would advocate for dropping any references to “Christmas” parties are damaging, rather than helping, their cause.