On The Fracturing of Language And The Disutility Of Labels

One of the unavoidable by-products of the democratization of language is that many frequently-used terms have picked up multiple meanings which aren't identifiable by context. Apropos the previous post, "racism" can be:

• "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others." (1).
• "Racial prejudice + Enhanced power of one race relative to another."
• "[a] system of oppression based on race" (2).

That's a non-exhaustive list, BTW.

I'm not going to argue for one or the other, but rather point out a couple of things:

• There are important, fundamental differences between each of these definitions. The same is true for other terms ("sexist" or "transphobic" or ...).
• When someone says "X is Y", it's frequently difficult, or simple impossible, to understand which definition they are using.
• Without the ability to ask clarifying questions you really can't tell what they're asserting. Contra Marcus, asking "What do you mean by 'X'?" is, in many cases, a necessary precursor to engaging an argument in good faith.

This is why I try to avoid (imperfectly, I'll be the first to admit) arguing about the meaning of labels, or using contested labels. All that gets you is interminable arguments about who's really a feminist/racist/man/woman/etc. I find it much more fruitful to ask what ideas people are trying to convey by the use of the label.