Part 3: Surrogation of language

Yes, in the Introduction I briefly mentioned that words themselves are symbols. But I’ve avoided giving any examples of the surrogation of language, because there’s just too much to say about it, all on its own. This topic is a big part of the reason I decided to write this series in the first place.

When we surrogate on words, we value them more than the things they’re meant to describe. This mostly leads to issues in communication, and I’ve broken them down into three distinct kinds.

Arguments over semantics

Oftentimes, two people will have shared understanding of a situation, but they’ll argue over whether to apply a particular label to it. This leads to “arguments over semantics,” when two parties contend over what the meaning of a word should be. Really, I think most arguments are arguments over semantics. Here are some examples; these are all based on real conversations I’ve had or overheard.

• Is she “addicted” to coffee? One person says, “Yes, because she gets withdrawal symptoms without it.” Another says, “No, because she could stop if she really wanted to.” So, is she “addicted?” That’s a meaningless question now. Both people are in agreement about all the details of her relationship to coffee—we have all the information. The label, which is an imprecise shortcut to that information, is now useless, and it’s especially useless to argue over it.
• Is the US a “culture” on its own, or is it just a place where many different cultures—from other places—meet and mix? One person says, “It’s a culture, because the US has its own set of untouchable values: namely, the various forms of personal liberty.” The other says, “It’s not a culture, because the US isn’t very old and doesn’t mandate very many unique traditions, or foods, or clothes, etc.” Both people are in agreement about everything going on in the US. So, is the US a “culture?” That’s a meaningless question now.
• I’ve been asked a handful of times, “Are you a feminist?” Dear reader, have you been on the internet? Have you seen what a vast range of examples exist for the term “feminism?” Whether I answer “yes” or “no,” I’ve hardly conveyed any real information. You won’t know what I think about the wage gap, or relationships, or abortion, or whom I’m going to vote for. If you think you’ll be able to tell these things just from knowing that label, it’s because you’re overconfident that you and I share the same exact definition of the label.
• Similarly: One person says, “This action is racist because it treats people differently based on their skin color.” Another says, “No, it’s prejudiced but not racist, because it doesn’t follow the pattern of systemic racial oppression in our society.” So, is it “racist?” It doesn’t matter what we say. Both people are in agreement about what the action is and isn’t doing. They can now talk about the effects, the motives, whether it’s right or wrong (and they probably already agree that it’s wrong). They have no need to continue debating which label to put on it.
• Was that mass shooting incident an act of “terrorism?” One person says, “Yes, because he caused an enormous amount of terror, and if you won’t call him a terrorist it’s because he’s white and you’re racist.” Another says, “No, because terrorism needs to have an ideological motive, and we never learned his motive; and if you call him a terrorist, it’s because you want to draw a false equivalence between crazy loners and harmful ideologies.” So, was it “terrorism?” That’s a meaningless question now.

And notice, in that last example, how easily either side can attribute bad motives to the other. When you assume that you own definition is universal, anyone using the word in a different way can be made to look like they’re being disingenuous. Don’t ever do this if your goal is actual communication. Ask for definitions often, avoid ambiguous words, and insist on getting to the substance of the conversation as quickly as possible.

Unexamined words

What’s implied above is that if your audience actually doesn’t understand what you’re trying to convey, you should try to convey it with different words. Is your audience really incapable of receiving the information you’re sending them, or are you just speaking in the wrong language? The symbol is not the substance, so if the symbols aren’t doing their job, you can just exchange them for different ones. Do this even if the new words are less efficient or less aesthetic (if your goal is effective communication, that is). Here’s an obvious example:

• “Hi, are you here on vacation?”
• “…my English, not so good.”
• “You are here on a trip? Just a few days? Not a long time?”
• “Yes, one week.”

And here’s a more interesting example. World-famous comedian Louis C.K. explains how, when a joke is no longer getting laughs, he makes an effort to discard the specific words, pauses, and body language he’s been using, recall the underlying idea that the joke was about, and express it again in a new way. (49:46 – 51:25):

We can all do something similar—get back to the idea, the substance, behind the words. Consider that a dictionary is just a long book of, “Here’s a word, and here are some different words for the very same idea that the word represents.” If you’re unable to express the same idea with different words, then you don’t actually have an understanding of it; you’ve just memorized a particular series of words.

Shifting definitions

Sometimes, we update our definitions of words in the middle of a conversation just to try and defend a point more easily. I saw this example:

• Person A says, “I’m against identity politics.”
• Person B says, “But all politics are identity politics.”
• Person A: “No they’re not. Look, I’m against gun restrictions, but that’s because of certain ideas that I hold, not because of my race or sex or orientation.”
• Person B: “You identify as a gun advocate, and so you’re promoting the interests of your identity group, just like everybody else.”
• Person A: “Wait, liking guns is my identity?”
• Person B: “Yes, anything can be an identifier.”
• Person A: “Then saying ‘all politics are identity politics’ isn’t really saying anything.”
• Person B: “I don’t know where you’re going with this, but I’m still correct.”

This connects to a special type of argument fallacy called the Motte and Bailey: It’s when you use words that appear to make a bold claim about something, but when challenged on it you shift to a more benign definition that makes the claim easier to defend. See the link above for many examples. And again, don’t ever do this if your goal is actual communication.

Summary

Remember that language exists as a mechanism for conveying ideas. If the ideas themselves have been effectively shared, you have no honest reason to continue dwelling on the particular words. If you find yourself failing to share the ideas, you should try to use different words. And finally, if you’re using words to cleverly obscure ideas in a way that feels advantageous to you, you’re committing deception and should be called out for it.

I hope I’ve outlined this topic clearly and with intuitive examples. That was my goal here, and it was important to me. However, I have to admit that in terms of technical explanation, someone else has already done this 100x more thoroughly than I have. If you’re interested in this topic and are willing to pour some time into it, you simply must read A Human’s Guide to Words.

–pdf