The Problem With Definitions: What George Orwell can teach us about communication gaps


“Who controls the present controls the past”. In his novel, 1984, George Orwell elucidated how language could be used by the totalitarian Party to control the minds of individuals. Their invention of “newspeak” was a method of narrowing the definition of words to strip away their ambiguity and their complexity. A statement such as “all men are equal” is an absurd statement if the word “equal” is flattened out of meaning. If there is no concept of political equality in the mind of the individual, the statement “all men are equal” may as well mean “all men are the same height”. If you succeed in changing the thoughts that arise in the mind when the word “equal” is summoned, you’ve succeeded in eradicating equality as a concept in the past.

This brilliant explanation of the exploitability of language and the malleability of the past really highlighted for me the problems I’ve had discussing the topics I’m exploring for this book project. As an example, let’s take the word “religion”. I noticed that after I did research into religion from a perspective that valorizes it (Mircea Eliade) I found that my brain’s quick search definition of the word changed. Any given word can contain an infinite amount of meaning load. So to communicate at all, we have to truncate the definitions of a word so that it is usable. Of course, this is a judicious linguistic practice. But when it comes to certain words like “religion” I find I bump up against overly deflated definitions of that word. Definitions I would guess are informed more by individual relationships with the word than the history of its usage. An individual who was damaged by a religious institution is, for his own well being, going to define the word “religion” as “bad things”. It’s an instinct. So when I, a student of religious history say “religion” and mean “all of human history” I put the word in front of a person for whom the word means “bad things” the two parties's realities split because of the linguistic conflict. We have one reality where the word "religion" is defined by human history, the other where it is defined by a single experience. In the latter, religion means "bad things", it has always meant "bad things". The concept of religion has been flattened, backwards in time, This creates an immediate communication gap. In this book, I will use a number of such words. So I’m not sure if I should be tackling the communication issue at all, and if so how much word space to dedicate to it. So far, I’m inclined to mostly just write and not worry about this too much. But I can’t say it’s easy. I’m constantly noticing an urge to defend certain words and certain usages of words.




I very much relate to the person who equates religion to “bad things”. I grew up a Jehovah's Witness and had child sex abuse incidents occur in my family at the hands of a JW authority figure.
When it all came to light many years later, the criminal had already been promoted to missionary work in another country. My parents encouraged their children to forgive this person and move on. Why? "Because God forgave this person, so we should too". And you know what? I was so profoundly mind controlled by this organization that I sided with this viewpoint for many years. I am telling you this story so that you understand that I know firsthand the ravages of religion.


To be perfectly clear, when I use the terms "religious", "religious experience" and "religion" here, I am not invoking colloquial definitions favourable and unfavourable to religion. I am underlining a fundamental human phenomenon that ends up being religion as we know it. Careful not to conflate the two. One is a value neutral phenomenon. The other is coloured by the malevolent (and benevolent) activity of humans. It is the former that interests me, despite my own horrible experience with the latter. Remember that your own experience of a thing is not the whole of that thing. 

I think that a religious urge exists so fundamentally within the human creature that its manifestation is inevitable. I don't think we see this urge take form in only negative ways and only within the boundaries of religious institutions (as we define them colloquially). I think the behaviour of humans is religious whenever they do nearly anything. Even activities that we've categorized as secular. So when I say “religious institutionality” in a blog post and use it in  a favourable manner I don't mean "religion good”, I mean something closer to “codification of ecstatic method”.

————


A little update on the book project. Productivity took a hit because of a big move and a new job but I’m back in the swing of things now. I did three hours of research today and ninety minutes of writing. At this rate I will have completed my annotations of the Eliade works relevant to my project by January 10 and will be able to shift focus to a different area. As much as I like Eliade, I look forward to exploring new territory. 


Happy New Year everyone, best of luck and see you on the other side!



Comments