I’ve been meaning to write this post for a long time, but one of the comments on the Avatar post finally pushed me to do it. I am just so tired of people using the dictionary in discussions of complex issues as if the dictionary definition trumps, well, everything. No, people. The dictionary is a good tool, but a very simple one. It will not help you understand complex concepts and it will certainly not win you a debate.
This happens a lot when white people try to have a discussion about the word racism. Any time the concept of Prejudice + Power comes up, certain folks rush to m-w.com to prove that racism means exactly what it says online. “See!!” they shout triumphantly, while anyone who’s had this conversation hundreds of times merely rolls their eyes and prepares to begin another session of Racism 101.
Dictionary definitions are problematic, particularly online definitions. Merriam-Webster Online’s free version is abridged. For those unaware, abridged means:
1: to reduce in scope : diminish
2: to shorten in duration or extent
3: to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : condense
Most inexpensive print dictionaries are abridged, too. And though I don’t think they say so on the site, some m-w.com definitions are even more abridged than the print version. Most of the time people looking to get the gist of a word don’t need the full, unabridged definition and etymology of a word. However, anyone looking to prove that a word does or does not mean something absolutely, or to say “You’re making up definitions, X word doesn’t mean that!”, cannot turn to the abridged definition to prove their point.
Beyond that, not all dictionaries are created equal. Merriam-Webster is a good dictionary, yes. But comparable to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)? Not quite. Will you find a more thorough definition of racism in the OED than M-W unabridged? Probably. (I can’t say for sure as I do not own an OED.) It certainly won’t be less complex. These are not the only two dictionaries of the English language around, either. And while they certainly will have many of the same definitions, there is a reason why there are more than two.
And then we come to words whose many facets are beyond the scope of a dictionary definition. This is what encyclopedias are for, in part. If you’re looking for a deep understanding of a word or a concept, the dictionary isn’t going to provide it. That’s not a dictionary’s job.
In his essay “Defining Racism“, Daniel Hindes points out that “dictionary definitions are all short and unambiguous (traits desirable in a dictionary),” and take a lot of key things for granted (due to shortness). For the definition of Racism, this includes the existence of Race. Hindes then brings up the functional/sociological definition of race, something that requires a lot more words than you’ll find in most dictionaries. The functional definition is a lot deeper and more involved — not a surprise — and is the result of people’s actual experience with racism and many, many discussions about the issue, amongst other things. Sociology is complex.
One final point to consider: I’m sure that the people involved in editing and updating various dictionaries strive to be impartial and unbiased. After all, it’s just about the words and what they mean, right? There’s no way that could be biased or skewed in some way.
Untrue.
Though I don’t ascribe some vast conspiracy by “The Man” to “Keep us down” or anything like that, I am well aware that if you’re a member of a majority or privileged group, the fact that racism is not just about how one person feels about another might not occur to you. If it doesn’t occur to you, then having that as a definition wouldn’t strike you as odd or incomplete or even wrong. The thing to remember is that not all definitions are absolute or true to the core. The English language is mutable, changeable, evolving. Don’t believe me? Then go throw a faggot on the fire and rape your neighbor’s lawn gnome. The former will not require having to interact with a gay person and the latter has nothing to do with sexual assault. Look them up.
Bottom line: whipping out a dictionary definition during a discussion of complex issues is ill-advised at best. I would even go so far as to say it’s dumb. It doesn’t put you over on anyone else and it doesn’t win the debate. It usually shows that you don’t have any kind of true understanding of the concepts under discussion and usually leads to people either working to educate you or dismissing you outright.
There’s a fine line between trying to understand a foreign concept or different point of view and just being an ignorant ass. Avoid the latter by leaving the dictionary alone.
This is one of the things that pisses me off about the whole gay marriage debate.
Those against gay marriage LOVE to point to dictionaries that support their “definition” (one man and one woman) and scream about how that’s been the definition of marriage from time immemorial…
All the while, they casually disregard the dictionaries that have broadened the definition since the debate began as well as the cultures that DID/DO NOT define marriage so restrictively.
As if their chosen definition trumps what is right, fair, and just.
Plug for one of my favorite speakers Erin McKean. She’s a lexicographer for the Oxford American Dictionary and has done a couple of lectures on why you can’t always trust what’s in the dictionary and more that influenced the way I read this post.
One lecture was at TED http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/erin_mckean_redefines_the_dictionary.html and another at a google conference http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1588634025806636713 (that’s like an hour long.)
That’s a great TED vid by Erin McKean . . .
My favorite example of this is Justice Scalia looking up the word “wetland” in Websters – after hearing hours of expert, complex argument – to justify his ideology-serving definition of what lands the government should regulate in order to protect clean water. You can imagine the resulting opinion!
I’m one who has brought up the dictionary definition of racism when discussing the concept that racism must equal predjudice plus power, so I’ll address this.
First, I don’t see how the fact that one uses a quotation out of an abridged dictionary makes any difference in this context. A dictionary is abridged by leaving uncommon words out and by leaving out archaic definitions and those that are not commonly used. They are not abridged by leaving important concepts out of the definitions they do present. When an abridged dictionary presents the definition of racism as being dependent on racial prejudice, it was not abridged by leaving out the phrase or meaning “plus the power to act on it” out.
Second, what they do is to present the meanings of words as commonly used. The fact is that racism as used by the vast majority of people refers to racial predjudice, regardless of what a small fraction of left-wing activists and academics would like. Efforts to change that by those people does not mean that the change has actually occurred, nor does it mean that it should change.
Personally, that usage seems to me to be an attempt to excuse racism, not eliminate it.
While I agree with RonF, I still object to using dictionary definition in ambiguous case. Judges have often used the dictionary against transsexual women, to prevent their recognition as female, because they do not produce ova.
In the case of something like the use of the term “wetlands”, I would say that if a group of experts had testified as to how the term is used in a technical context and that’s the context that the term was used in creating a law, it would be inappropriate to use the dictionary definition in interpreting the term as used in that law.
This meta-debate, about what racism means, first pinged my radar when I had an argument with a student of mine who had gone on to grad school. I said that it would be racist for me to assume that all Mexican-Americans had the same stance on immigration issues, and it would also be racist for him to assume that. He said that, essentially, “That’s not what racism is,” and explained that racism requires power.
I told him that he was using jargon, and I was using the term as it is commonly understood. That doesn’t mean either of us was wrong, and I think that’s something that the angry black woman is ignoring in this post. Words have multiple definitions, and while it is a poor debate tactic to ignore the concepts that someone is talking about and focus instead on defining their words to your own advantage, that doesn’t mean that the words in question have only one meaning. It doesn’t mean that the most nuanced meaning of a word must necessarily obliterate all other meanings.
If you say, “In America, black people cannot be racist,” and I respond, “Anyone can be racist, by treating people differently based on race”–I haven’t responded to your point, which is that black people come from a different position of power in this country, and their prejudice has a different vibe (and perhaps a different result) than a white person’s.
I think that the acquisition of new meanings is just a part of the evolution of language, but that doesn’t mean that previous forms cease to exist or cease to be useful.
The word “gender” comes to mind as another term that has an intellectual, “I’m-writing-my-doctoral-thesis” meaning as well as more old-school meanings.