It's not news that politics can get nasty. And it feels like the quality of dialogue between opposing viewpoints has worsened. While we are generally a pessimistic lot, this isn't entirely an illusion. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, for instance, simply do not make deals and compromises in the way they used to. While it's not in our power to fundamentally change our political system anytime soon, we can at least make attempts to understand each other a bit better. Ultimately, many of our political problems come from different people using different definitions for the same word.
Many times, but not always, equivocation comes into play. Equivocation is a logical fallacy in which two different definitions of a word are used to draw an incorrect conclusion. For example, I could say that since a feather is light and something that is light isn't dark, a feather is therefore never dark. In this argument, the word 'light' alternatively means a stream of photons and a lack of weight, two very different definitions. This argument would not translate well. More importantly, it is a reminder that we should focus on concepts rather than words.
The word 'socialism' especially falls victim to equivocation. What does it mean to you? To the fervent Bernie supporter, it refers to Scandinavia's generous social programs, which collect high taxes but still leave room for free markets(which actually are quite free). To the conservative, socialism is the catastrophe unfolding in Venezuela, or the brutality of the Soviet Union, any sort of economy controlled by a tyrannical, incompetent government. Meanwhile, I sit here wishing to use the Marxist definition of socialism- an economic system in which the means of production are collectively owned- but recognize few people use it.
The problem is there has never been a centralized definition of what socialism is. Different people use different definitions and come to incorrect conclusions about their opponents as a result. I can't tell you how many times I have seen the argument that Sanders' policies are dangerous because they are 'socialist' , and Venezuela is 'socialist', so therefore Sanders' policies imitate a failed system. We have come no closer to determining how beneficial or detrimental Bernie's policies would be. I don't believe we can all agree on a definition for socialism, but we can at least make sure we understand the other person's.
Even more contentious are terms related to social issues, although they involve less equivocation. The term 'feminism' gives me a headache. To me, as to the overwhelming majority of self-described feminists, feminism has always been defined as an ideology that promotes the equality of both genders by raising the status of women. However, those who are fed up with particularly militant or easily offended promoters of women's rights see feminism as the ideology that women are superior to men, and call themselves anti-feminist. Most people who describe themselves this way would support activities contained under my definition of feminism, but they call themselves egalitarians. Although they purport to be exactly to my own ideologies, I generally agree on a fundamental level with so-called “anti-feminists”. We simply use different words. When someone immediately follows up the statement “I'm not a feminist” with “I'm an egalitarian”, I relax a little.
Still, I grapple mightily with the fact that feminism means a different, negative thing to some people, even if they really do support gender equality. Maybe there are just enough misogynists out there to make me wary. There are definitely self-described anti feminists out there who are opposed to women's equality, but only so many. Part of the problem is that I hadn't been exposed to the definition of feminism as misandry until the past couple years or so. The 'social justice warrior' definition of feminist has simply not been a part of vocabulary until recent years. It sound really bad to me, then, when one insists that they are opposed to feminism; the sentiment brings to mind bigotry before anything else.
I think the takeaway from this analysis is that the more precise or rigid of a definition you imagine a word has, the more likely you are to miscommunicate with someone who uses a different definition. Sometimes that person may actually agree with you, but remain an enemy simply due to a misuse of language. And while it's unrealistic to precisely define every word in the English language, we can at least establish semantics in a debate. Make sure you understand what definitions your opponent uses, and that they know what you mean. The point of words it to communicate concepts, and this only works when we tear down the language barrier.
