Words: Double Meaning or No Meaning, They Still Cause Problems

Words can simultaneously possess very contrasting meanings, which is something I have found is one major source of disagreement between humankind. Not only in personal arguments but also in political disagreements are the specific meanings of certain words, or the lack of specificity (i.e. vagueness), able to cause quite the uproar between sides.

I had a disagreement with my friend that driving my car was, in her words, “the worst experience she’d every had driving a car. For her it was too large and felt funny to drive.” This occurred after she picked me up from work in my car so that we could take a trip to CVS afterwards. At face value, I would clearly classify this as a Level 3 disagreement in Kaufer’s scale, because her idea of a terrible car ride is obviously very different from mine, for I have no problem driving my car. In thinking deeper, and knowing my friend so well, I think that this may also operate on a Level 5 as well. My roommate is a perfectionist and tends to blow every single event out of proportion. Everything becomes a big deal, when in the grand scheme it really means nothing. So, she and I have conflicting world values in that I am go-with-the-flow whereas she is highly particular and over-analytical of every detail in life.

On this page (http://www.nolabels.org/blog/state-union-fixnotfight), I found the quote, “Our movement is succeeding, thanks to the support of millions of Americans” to be a perfect example of this vagueness I mentioned and in violation of Jones’ Usage Rule. It is highly ambiguous in that it does not define this success or specifically how many Americans, or from what demographic, etc. This statement was made in an attempt to rally support for the blog’s “No Labels” campaign. Apparently, advocates of the “No Labels” program were wearing their orange pins proclaiming so at the President’s state of the union address on February 12. Yet, the article, in standing alone, does not define well enough what the above quoted statement means, which causes the reader to feel cheated and confused.

In terms of politics, “Washington” is a word that is used throughout this blog to represent the DC and government area as a whole. I think this, in itself, speaks as more of an ideograph on the “No Labels” blog because there are so many connotations associated with the grouping together of “Washington” into one. Washington implies power, fight, disagreement, change, teamwork. The only problem I find with this word is that many have differing opinions of what Washington means. This, I think, works in favor of this blog because they are attempting to erase the negative label that “Washington” has gained. They are attempting to eliminate the boundaries and divisions within “Washington.” I use the word in italics because I am referring to the ideograph idea of Washington rather than just the Washington DC place itself.