Saturday, February 25, 2012
Flexible Definitions
In class, we discussed the way in which some important historical and political figures (such as Gandhi or Jesus) have rejected certain words because of their negative connotations. I wonder, though, how effective this is in the long run and in terms of influencing a population. If a single person chooses to use the word 'opponent' rather than 'enemy', it will stand out, and people will likely recognize the significance of the choice. However, if a population decides to follow the example of this person and discard the term 'enemy', using 'opponent' instead, it may be that the meaning of 'opponent' will change over time (possibly a very short time) to match the meaning of 'enemy', thus rendering pointless the original term choice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I posted a thought on this on my own blog. http://pm-world-religions.blogspot.com/2012/02/re-flexible-definitions.html
ReplyDeleteThis is very true. I also think that many figures are concerned with the present moment, and future linguistic shifts have only limited relevance to what they are attempting to do in the moment.
ReplyDeleteChanging how you speak doesn't accomplish anything by itself, but being precise about saying what you really mean can be a very useful tool for altering how you think, feel, and behave -- which is the point.
ReplyDelete