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.
No comments:
Post a Comment