IT DOESN’T HAVE TO MEAN THAT

It’s been announced in the UK that the powers that be are making moves to deal with what is described as ‘extremism’. Sounds pretty good really, doesn’t it? No-one wants extremism bleeding through the country because it means that there’s real risk to the whole of society. Extremism is where all kinds of troubles come from. But how do you define extremism? The easiest image we could have will tend to be on the far ends of any continuum but the depth of understanding which can make the water muddy sits easier in the centre. What’s been called out as a problem in this particular instance is that the definition being made for extremism is so broad that it can cover almost anything. So words matter but their meanings are vital. We need to understand and share that knowledge with others to create value in those words. Cool is low temperature but is also a way to describe someone who’s interesting and well liked, or at the forefront of popularity. We’ve all used cool in the slang way and we all understand how it can be deployed, but if we had no knowledge of that slang, we’d be left scratching our heads why someone is cold as a being a good thing. Now words and their meanings change over time as they all get used and amended and that’s how evolution of language happens. The problems come from when changes of words usage and meanings are changed by force, which is at the core of what’s happened in this case. When changes happen through time, everyone has the chance to take on the incremental differences, but a leap is something which is pushed onto people and any amendments in meanings which came along with the natural method, the steps where people tried out the usages of different possibilities until the most popular stuck, meaning we’re using words without foundations. Forced usage of language as a means of control is very clear in 1984 as Newspeak is grown. The Party releases amendments to words and their meanings to control what and how the population think. In the book, there is also a method employed to make said changes appear retroactive. The old meaning was never in existence, the new meaning has always been there and if you think it hasn’t then you’re trying to subvert society and should be dealt with. And there is the horror of those forced changes to meanings and definitions. If a word can become something else outside of the usual methods of usage, how can we be sure of what we’re saying as being correct? And if the definitions are made too wide, then everything could fall under it’s use so it has no utility at all. Is it a hat or a helmet? Or a Cap? Or a Hood? A headdress? Doesn’t matter. All of those shall now be called a hat because they all do basically the same thing so we only need the one word. Why waste time and effort on anything else? Words are a central pillar in how we communicate so having nuanced understanding of how they’re used is crucial to our collective societal health. If we try to force changes or manipulate how and when our linguistic powers are deployed, we open doors to so much more than confusion. I for one don’t fancy ending up in the Ministry of Love. Stay safe all.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

I’ve listened to loads of clips of ‘The Atheist Experience’ over the years and they’re a great way to explore an understanding of opinions on the existence or not of any and all mystical powers. There are more than a few examples where the people calling in have marched into the ring to prove the existence of the almighty and have been crunched because they didn’t have anything like a coherent idea at their fingertips but it’s not those things that got me thinking.

One of the first questions that gets asked of people when they call in saying they can prove the existence of the magical in any and all possible forms is that they need to define what it is that they’re going to prove before they start, and you’ll be amazed at how often that’s where things unravel.

Making sure that there’s a shared understanding of meanings is a tiny part of how we collectively communicate but without that shared understanding of what words or events or things mean, comprehension falls apart.

There are examples of tiny actions that don’t translate between different parts of the world. Put your thumb up in the UK for example and you signal that all is well, but do it in Iran and you give a message more akin to the middle finger gesture. The two finger V sign is either ‘Peace’ or ‘**** off’ depending on which way round you present it so the most simple elements of how we show or explain to others can often not be as clear cut as people would like.

Making sure that there is a clarity surrounding definitions of things ensures that we can all understand what each of us is trying to say but it goes beyond just describing things.

How do you define yourself?

How do each of us define ourselves on a day to day basis? Do you use your job? Your age? Your sports team? Your nationality? All of these things can be ways that we see ourselves and other people but should we solely use singular factors as defining the whole?

Are all old people the same? Do all fans of a certain sports team think the same way? Do all tall people behave the same? If you vote for one person, does that follow that you share every trait of everyone else who voted the same way?

Making sure that we have the correct definitions for things is vital but looking at a singular thread and using that as the sole defining characteristic can be a dangerous route to take. It then becomes far too easy to generalise the group of a specific point in whatever way you could imagine.

BMW drivers don’t know how to use their indicators?

All foreigners are dangerous?

Sound familiar?

If we look at ourselves through a single lens, wouldn’t we risk distorting how we view everything as we relate everything back to our job? Does that mean that our families become those people we see when not in work or the ones who moan if you have to work late?

If all we are is a single strand then we become two dimensional. It’s all of the other things that we do, think, or like that goes into making up who we all are so being too focused on defining ourselves by a singular point or factor can bring the risk of shattering you if things were to change.

Lose your job and that can destroy you if that was all you defined yourself as.

Embrace the many different things that make up you.

Stay safe all.