Discussion this week brought to my mind a problem that exists with usage of the language.  Viewed from outside we might just see arguments or heated discussion, when in reality both parties involved might be referring to same thing or their usage of terms has a very different meaning implied.  What I am referring to is inexact nature of the language.  Words have very defined meaning, but meaning often is shaped by background, society and various other factors.  As words are used new meanings get implied to them or change them.  Partially this occurs due to innocent evolution of the language, other times it is used to influence minds of people through deliberate change of the meaning.

In the class this came up when we discussed the concept of not being limited by definition of functionality.  Functionality the way it was expressed by Professor Lansky was slightly different from my understanding of it, a small difference but enough of a difference that perception of what was being said changed.  Professor Lansky was using it with more practical approach, as if you were talking about tools, while I was thinking of skill set which is mutable and unlike tools can be easily modified based on the changing need.  Once clarification occurred all of the sudden the objection I might had disappeared.

Noting this problem of usage of the language I believe it is important for librarians to be at least aware that this bias exists and to be able to see other side of any issues.  For example let’s look at current War on Terrorism.  Choice of words was deliberate to invoke strong feelings, but unless we step back and look at issue from more neutral ground it is hard to see why the conflict even exits.  Word terrorist has a strong implication of someone who evokes terror for their own gain, but it is also a term to make you biased against specific group of the individuals.  While I do not disagree with usage of this term in some cases, I do think it is abused.  What I am trying to point out here is that if we look at Partisans of WW II using same definitions for the word terrorist,  these people would be consider terrorist in today’s world.  Reason we do not call them that is because we use language to portray what we want others to perceive.  If we want to support one group because they fighting for goals we support we will call them freedom fighters or partisans, but if we disapprove of the same group now we will call them terrorists or rebels.  Tactics used might be the same, but language is used to sway public opinion.  This is done with clear premeditation.

I just want to point this out, so if you get into discussion and you think others are wrong or do not understand you, it might be not because your opinions differ, but because language and terminology used might have a different meaning to the people involved.  Now if you disagree with what I said please tell me.