When Alice upbraided Humpty Dumpty on his misuse of a word he replied scornfully, “Words mean just what I choose them to mean – no more, no less”. Uh-huh! That has a modern ring to it. A lot of people think much the same. The result is talking past each other.
If we cannot agree on the meaning of a word, then that word doesn’t mean anything. When words have no agreed meaning then talk is reduced to little more effectiveness than barking and moaning.
We’re not that far gone, yet, but we’re drifting that way.
For example: Extremism/Moderation.
These two words have been assigned moral roles that have nothing to do with their actual meaning. Neither word describes anything proper or improper. Instead, they describe how committed you may be to what you consider right, or wrong.
Moderation is generally considered to be a more thoughtful position than extremism. Sometimes it is, but what is the moderate position on right and wrong - half right? I don’t think so, and neither does anyone else.
Moderation is useful when it comes to deciding when you should stop eating. It’s a poor choice when it comes to deciding how much energy to put into what you should defend, and what you should oppose.
Barry Goldwater famously said, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue”! Who could disagree? There is no reference in the meaning of either word to - vice or virtue. Goldwater felt he had to make that statement because the words had been misused so often that public understanding had been confused.
When you misuse a word, then you don’t know what you’re talking about, and those you’re talking to, don’t know either.
Another similar example: Partisan/Non-partisan.
A partisan is committed to some cause. A non-partisan isn’t. Somehow, partisan has become a term of opprobrium, while non-partisan has become a term of virtuous good sense. Nonsense! The French Partisans of WWII were defending their country against the Nazi invaders. The non-partisans were colluding with the enemy. Is there any doubt about which group was virtuous and which group was not?
There is no vice in being partisan and no virtue in being non-partisan. There is vice or virtue in what cause you endorse. Non-partisans are not in the game. They have no value to anyone. Partisans do matter. Depending on their goals you should be for them, or against them. There is no sense in being against partisans because they’re partisans. There is sense in being for, or against, their cause.
Another bi-polar example: Discriminatory/Non-discriminatory
I just checked, “discriminatory”. With spell-check. It informs me that the word is synonymous with: bigotry; unfairness; and prejudice. That’s one of the ways modern usage creates confusion; assign muddy associations to precise words. Discrimination means no more than noticing that one thing is different from another thing. That’s all. There is no judgment of value, only a judgement of difference.
There was a time, not so very long ago, when a person considered thoughtful and wise would also be thought of as discriminating. Non-discrimination, on the other hand, does not describe a virtuous lack of bias. It describes a lack of ability or, a refusal to, distinguish one thing from another. In either case; vacuity.
When words mean only what you choose them to mean, then they don’t mean anything.
Babel confuses not just the listener, but the babbler as well.
I’ve given three examples of current babel. There are more, increasingly more. It may seem that I’m being pedantically critical. I don’t think so. I think I’m being usefully critical. Using words correctly doesn’t impair communication; it makes real communication possible. Without proper usage discussion descends into emotional, meaningless ranting.
Some will object saying, ”language always changes. There’s nothing to be done about it”. That’s true. But we should do what we can to slow the process. Nothing is gained from inventing new meanings for established words. Much is lost.
Conflict is possible without a common language. Argument is not. Argument requires that opponents understand what the other side is saying. You may still disagree, but if both sides speak correctly you will at least know what you’re disagreeing about.
When words are confused, thought is confused.