I have a bit of an obsession with terms. More precisely, I like precision. I’m a philosopher, so my obsession with precise terms is something of an occupational hazard.
I often find myself in conversations with people who feel constrained by terms and labels, so naturally, they resist policing for precision’s sake. I understand the tyranny of terms, but let’s do some thinking about intelligibility.
First, a parable.
Suppose I’m late to a meeting with you. “Sorry,” I gasp, “I was walking my dog, and it took longer than I thought. It’s the lump, you know, right after he eats — which was this morning. And the leash kept slipping off, because of the thin neck. And of course having no legs slows us down even more, particularly because I sometimes have to wait while he suns himself on a warm rock. He tries hard to keep up, but he can only slither so fast.”
If you stayed with this explanation to this point, you probably realized that my “dog” is, in fact, a snake.
You might object. You might say something like, “Why not just say your pet is a snake? Why call him a dog?” Now, suppose I reply that this is just the way I want to use the word dog. The meanings of words are arbitrary anyway, I continue, so who are you to tell me what my words mean? Fine.
If you’re a fan of Lewis Carol, this parable might remind you of Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking-Glass. Humpty Dumpty offends little Alice’s sense of making sense:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” (Chapter 6)
While I have a good bit of sympathy with Humpty Dumpty’s question, I’m squarely with Alice on the issue of intelligibility: How do we communicate if terms are this fluid? For us to communicate (effectively), don’t terms need to be shared and at least somewhat fixed? But if the meanings of terms are fixed, then aren’t we buying into the arbitrariness of terms? Doesn’t someone have to do the fixing? Why not just take note that, when I use the term dog what I actually mean is snake?
In the BDSM culture, we find all sorts of terms about roles and relationships: Dom(me)/sub, Master/slave, Owner/property, Top/bottom, etc., and it sometimes seems that each person in that culture has her own definitions for them. Is there an actual meaning to any of these terms, or is BDSM culture populated by Humpty Dumptys (and their subs)?
So, we have a bit of a conundrum. Do we fix and share the meanings of terms and spend the rest of our heartbeats arguing with others about “semantics”? Or do we give up intelligibility in favor of Humpty-Dumpty-style mastery?
In my work with people navigating the vicissitudes of relationships (kinky or otherwise), I talk about the meanings of terms as guideposts that are indeed shared and fixed, but fixed relative to a purpose. In other words (and I know I sound like a philosopher), the question in the previous paragraph is a false dilemma.
We can have it both ways. Stay tuned.