Word Games: The War of Dictionaries
I just read an excellent article The Mercy Blog: The ‘E’ Word that really cleverly illustrates one of the major foibles of polarized debate. Often when I get into an argument with someone, I find it necessary to define and redefine the words that we are throwing around in the midst of debate. Shockingly enough, it usually turns out that in a disagreement there is at least one key term that is being used with entirely different connotations by the different participants. Entire conversations can devolve into arguments over what a word means - and those arguments are, unfortunately, absolutely vital to the issue being debated.
This is especially the case for words that have a great deal of ideological significance, particularly if these words are particularly well-used in political discourse. Fairness, Justice, Morality, Family, Religion, Values, God, Rights, those are just a few. I call them BIG WORDS.
I've found it is often helpful to actually replace BIG WORDS with more nuanced terms in a dialogue. Talking about "Love"? Let's just go ahead and break it down to the greek variants, I'll avoid the L-word and just mention Eros or Philia or Agape. And if someone is using a BIG WORD in a conversation, I try to do what anyone should do if someone uses a word whose meaning isn't clear: ask for a precise definition - and hold them to it for the rest of the conversation.
Is this playing semantics? Yes, but I really don't think it's a game at all. In any conversation, a semantic common-ground is necessary for meaningful exchange of ideas. Today there is a sufficiently wide range of perspectives, backgrounds, ideologies, and value-sets that most BIG WORDS have a wide variety of meanings. And believe me, those meanings can be very diverse. If we don't have the same vocabulary, with the same definitions for all the important words, we can't communicate. If we come from different backgrounds, or have differing ideologies, chances are we'll have very different vocabularies. A Rosetta Stone is needed. Otherwise we're just talking past each other.
This is especially the case for words that have a great deal of ideological significance, particularly if these words are particularly well-used in political discourse. Fairness, Justice, Morality, Family, Religion, Values, God, Rights, those are just a few. I call them BIG WORDS.
I've found it is often helpful to actually replace BIG WORDS with more nuanced terms in a dialogue. Talking about "Love"? Let's just go ahead and break it down to the greek variants, I'll avoid the L-word and just mention Eros or Philia or Agape. And if someone is using a BIG WORD in a conversation, I try to do what anyone should do if someone uses a word whose meaning isn't clear: ask for a precise definition - and hold them to it for the rest of the conversation.
Is this playing semantics? Yes, but I really don't think it's a game at all. In any conversation, a semantic common-ground is necessary for meaningful exchange of ideas. Today there is a sufficiently wide range of perspectives, backgrounds, ideologies, and value-sets that most BIG WORDS have a wide variety of meanings. And believe me, those meanings can be very diverse. If we don't have the same vocabulary, with the same definitions for all the important words, we can't communicate. If we come from different backgrounds, or have differing ideologies, chances are we'll have very different vocabularies. A Rosetta Stone is needed. Otherwise we're just talking past each other.
posted by The Middle-Wing Wacko | 5:35 PM
1 Comments:
Have you found that as per game theory the very folks that may be worth discussing such topics with may chose to disengage, as you debate using "word games" because it is entirely possible to use seventh grade debating tactics like this, and those who have previously played see the trap in advance of the end of the tic-tac-toe simulation.
Those who through perhaps ego, choose to continue the debate, have only three potential outcomes with the word game strategy - lose or draw, or they can quit and turn over that chess board. In which case their better part of valor (leaving the battlespace or quitting the game in an act of descretion), also serves the "word gamer strategist" in believing they've won, when in reality they've failed to change anyone's mind or bring them into the dialogue.
Why, because a person who feels disrespected of course wants revenge, and will seek such, perhaps through angry discourse or hateful verbal attacks. I've found that you cannot win an argument or debate, and when you think you have you should remember "a person against their will is of the same opinon still."
Yet, in that case, why waste energy on folks who are not going to listen, an why play word games with those who might?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home