‘pure form’ of each concept. Other writers, similarly, have thought
of concepts as having an essential or root meaning. Most modern
scholars, however, would concede that it is foolish to waste too much
time attempting to establish the ‘real’ meaning of words. Since words
have been, and are, used in different ways even in the same society,
let alone over centuries of use in a host of different ones.
Academic linguists and some contemporary philosophers tend to
concentrate on the ‘descriptive’ definition of words – examining how
they are used in common practice and perhaps offering some rules for
ensuring that you are unlikely to be misunderstood by adopting an
unusual or deviant use of the word. Contemporary linguists have
abandoned the practice of old-style grammarians of attempting to
prescribe rules for the ‘correct’ use of words. It would be very foolish
to attempt to legislate that, for instance, a word in English must
always be interpreted via its Greek, Latin or German origins –
language being a living and changing vehicle for communication
rather than an ancient monument.
In order to communicate clearly, however, it may on occasion be
useful to adopt a ‘stipulative’ definition and say ‘This is what I will
always mean by this term.’ This is frequently a legitimate and useful
academic device. It may also sometimes be permissible to coin a new
word for use as a technical term to avoid the emotive and vague
commonly used one. The problem, as we saw in Chapter 1, is that
such neologisms may well come to be used as imprecisely as the
terms they seek to replace.
In politics the practice of ‘persuasive’ definition of words is
commonplace. By this the writer or speaker tries to persuade their
audience that their definition of the word in question is the superior
usage. We have seen this illustrated already in this chapter (especially
in our discussion of freedom). As we have seen, such attempts are
more frequently an attempt to persuade the audience about the value
judgements they should make, than a technical exercise in clarifying
vocabulary.
Very often political debate, in practice, is an attempt to label your
opponents’ ideas with what Weldon (1953) calls a ‘boo!’ word and
your own with a ‘hurrah!’ one. Thus Conservatives will wish to label
Labour measures as ‘nationalisation’ and their own as ‘freedom’
whilst New Labour speakers now frequently denounce their oppo-
nents’ proposals as sacrificing ‘caring’ to ‘ideology’. In the USA66 CONCEPTS