schweblog

The dreadful debate over definitions.  It seems that when you get right down to it, these are the discussions that people abhor the most, far more than those concerning politics or religion.  Whereas with religion or politics, the difference can usually be distilled into a subjective evaluative judgment, the argument lacks a certain joie de vivre when it becomes apparent that the nature of a disagreement is not a fundamental difference, but the failure to use precise language.

In spite of its taboo, though, I think that discussions over definitions are arguably the most valuable of debates, in terms of tangible, meaningful cultural impact.  The aforementioned subjective difference that eventually arises in your religious and political discussion very rarely makes much of a difference in the world.  Generally speaking, both sides have their minds made up and, in contemporary democratic societies, this generally results in a simple manipulation of the masses and subsequent policies favoring the victor.  When pressed, political and religious discussion result in one or both participants locating an anchoring point that hinges their discussion on a general point of faith and, typically, a practically insurmountable difference.

With language, though, the very framework of a discussion is under examination.  Words no longer become the simple devices to scrutinize concepts, but are under scrutiny themselves.  While a discussion over something like the definition of what, precisely, constitutes a “hole” or a “pile” are undoubtedly fruitless, it’s the discussions over larger concepts that have a lasting impact.  In making a precise definition and recognizing the important distinctions therein, language is refined and, by extension, the ideas that permeate our society are clarified.

Hegel is well known for positing the existence a cultural consciousness—a zeitgeist—that comprises the values, approaches, and attitudes that are foundational for a given society at a point in time.  While a zeitgeist is an interesting concept, I find his idea of Master Signifiers to be far more enlightening and important, in terms of philosophy that can actually change a society.  A Master Signifier is what we generally call a “broad” concept—one that is up to interpretation can be used in a number of ways.  Over the course of political, social, and conceptual struggles, a Master Signifier is slowly “filled” with new concepts which give it shape until, eventually, a precise meaning is embraced and accepted.

The classic example is that of socialism.  Socialism, in economic terms, is very strictly defined.  However, the Soviets appropriated it and adapted it according to their political aspirations and views.  Meanwhile, the United States and other western powers contributed to a conceptualization of socialism that was a far cry from the Soviets’.  Whereas Russia defined socialism in the context of (a rather utopian) economic models and contrasted it to the horrors of capitalism,  the United States painted socialism in a primarily political light, in which the realities of the Stalinist models were exposed (and sometimes exaggerated) to emphasize a lack of individual freedom.  Oversimplified, one side framed it within a collective vision, whereas the other framed it in relation to individual liberty.

In the end, neither of them were very true to the classical economic definition.  But the battle itself was important.  How socialism was defined became an issue of significant importance, far more than who had more nuclear weapons or satellite states.  In this case, the Master Signifier was socialism and its definition and the controversy therein was of primary importance.  The definition of a single word and its associations was key in waging a war that was, primarily, ideological.  In much the same way, Master Signifiers can be imposed upon situations to encompass a number of varied and unrelated phenomenon, as was the case when the failures of Germany in the post-World War I climate were manifested in a single concept: the Jew.

I’m not so willing to lament over a debate over definitions.  I think precise language is fundamentally important in maintaining a broad ideological landscape.  Communism, socialism’s synonym in the western world in spite of its profound difference, illustrates this idea well.  In merging the words communism and socialism, capitalism and socialism managed to rob meaning from the the third—and arguably least political—of the three means of economic distribution.  It is also worth noting that both capitalism and socialism require a significant degree of state power, in varying capacities, whereas communism does not.  The economic concept of communism was lost entirely due to politically driven linguistic ambiguity.

When I get involved in debates over definitions, I am not intentionally obfuscating, nor am I trying to be a pedant.  I am ensuring that linguistic ambiguities are not getting in the way of understanding our world and the evaluative judgments that accompany them.