It is frustrating to try to debate anything important while using words which have more of a family of meanings than a single value. "God" is one obviously overloaded word, and so is "freedom." But I run into the same confusion when I want to know if something is a good movie or not. A lot of the discussion about the ACA is fuzzed because nobody knew what was in it to begin with, but the fact that the phrase "health care" isn't all that precise makes it even worse. (Does it include mental disorders? I gather the DSM-V really muddies the distinctions. Does it include prevention? Prevention of disorders stemming from lifestyle choices? Does health care mean insurance?)
The phrase "gender roles" is another muddy mess, conflating natural tendencies with caste-like rules.
I get it that sometimes word families are good--such as when writing poetry and you want to be allusive. And when I tell my wife "I love you" I mean it in a lot of different ways, and it isn't always convenient to parse them all out.
But the rest of the time discussion feels like trying to make marshmallow sculptures using rods of cooked spaghetti.
2 comments:
Becaus3e we are social beings, persuasion is important. Those who make their way in the world persuading others often do so by capitalising on the ambiguities of loaded words. I am not only thinking of politicians and salesmen. Human beings might not get anything done at all if we were completely rational, unable to be motivated by slippery terms.
I don't say this to excuse lying or manipulation, but to recognise its inevitability and even usefulness in moderate doses. It is good to resist it, but perhaps not good to die on every hill.
I think things would still get done, but the horse trading and log rolling would take longer and be much more detailed.
I think Orwell was largely--not completely--right; if you can define the language you define the terms of the debate and can make your position impregnable.
Post a Comment