I try to keep out of culture-war debates in the public sphere, but this one in particular always bothers me. I recall hearing an acquaintance once say "economic oppression is a form of slavery"; that got on my nerves quite a lot. Why couldn't it just be said that "economic oppression is bad" and then we wouldn't have to redefine words. The whole thing reminds me of Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty, who said "when I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean." But if we can't agree on a baseline definition of terms, it becomes increasingly difficulty to discuss anything at all - which, I fear, is what we are seeing in the current cultural moment. It is saddening that you had to write this essay, but thank you for doing so.
This is really excellent. Thank you. The notion of "thinking in words" is one of those things I had been struggling to come up with, and now that I see you explain it think "Maybe I need to get my head checked." That the symbol is what people are using to form relationships and not the objects symbolized is really putting your finger on the problem. Well done!
Your second para. made me think. In English department there's definitely the tendency to prefer "different ways of knowing" to the "scientific method", which may make sense based on their objects of study.
But in Social Psychology and Sociology circles, for instance, I've often seen it happen that the choice of method is highly malleable depending on the perceived political outcome a member of the circle thinks the method or study will have.
So, something like a choice between "science" and "narrative" when studying a phenomenon or a group is made based, not just on language, but on what the researcher wants the world to be like. Often as opposed to what the world is like, as you've noted here.
This leads to a lot of methodological and theoretical - not to mention semantic - confusion, again as you've said here.
Anyway, I need to think a little more on this, but thanks again for the post.
I try to keep out of culture-war debates in the public sphere, but this one in particular always bothers me. I recall hearing an acquaintance once say "economic oppression is a form of slavery"; that got on my nerves quite a lot. Why couldn't it just be said that "economic oppression is bad" and then we wouldn't have to redefine words. The whole thing reminds me of Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty, who said "when I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean." But if we can't agree on a baseline definition of terms, it becomes increasingly difficulty to discuss anything at all - which, I fear, is what we are seeing in the current cultural moment. It is saddening that you had to write this essay, but thank you for doing so.
Really great analysis
This is really excellent. Thank you. The notion of "thinking in words" is one of those things I had been struggling to come up with, and now that I see you explain it think "Maybe I need to get my head checked." That the symbol is what people are using to form relationships and not the objects symbolized is really putting your finger on the problem. Well done!
Good article here. Thanks.
Your second para. made me think. In English department there's definitely the tendency to prefer "different ways of knowing" to the "scientific method", which may make sense based on their objects of study.
But in Social Psychology and Sociology circles, for instance, I've often seen it happen that the choice of method is highly malleable depending on the perceived political outcome a member of the circle thinks the method or study will have.
So, something like a choice between "science" and "narrative" when studying a phenomenon or a group is made based, not just on language, but on what the researcher wants the world to be like. Often as opposed to what the world is like, as you've noted here.
This leads to a lot of methodological and theoretical - not to mention semantic - confusion, again as you've said here.
Anyway, I need to think a little more on this, but thanks again for the post.
Cheers!