www.firstnationstelegraph.com
We give words their meaning by Dr Anthony Dillon “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.” (Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll) One of the problems we face in our daily lives when communicating with others is that the words we use may have different meanings for different people. We as humans give words their meanings, and different contexts can sometimes lead to different meanings. Perhaps the reason why we may quickly dismiss someone who disagrees with us is that the meaning of the words we use to express our opinions are incredibly obvious to us, but not so for others. Most of us can recall a time where we have received a response we did not expect and thought, “But all I said was …” We know what we mean, but fail to realise that others may not know what we mean and may have a different interpretation of the words we use. Consider the problems that may arise when a couple decide to spend a ‘romantic’ evening together. Unless he and she know each other well, his idea of ‘romantic’ could be very different to her ideas of what it is. Consider the following further examples: A boss announces that he expects more ‘loyalty’ from his staff but is frustrated that he is not getting the ‘loyalty’. A girlfriend is frustrated that her boyfriend behaves in what she sees as a ‘jealous’ manner. Two parents tell their son they cannot ‘trust’ him but the son continues to disappoint them. For each of these examples, there is a key word. They are ‘loyalty’, ‘jealousy’, and ‘trust’. Now the main actor in each of these examples knows what the words
mean to him or her, but the others do not. For example, what does ‘loyalty’ mean for the boss? It could mean staff starting work earlier. It could mean that they attend more of the work social functions. It could mean that staff take the opportunity to promote the company every chance they get. It could mean all of these or none of these. Declare Yourself, a book I often use when teaching, has a chapter ‘Words are not realities’. Over the years, many students, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous have told me how helpful the book has been for them, particularly this chapter on words. The
authors suggest that to improve our communication, we should ‘operationalise’ our communication, rather than rely on words that are abstract in meaning. By ‘operationalise’, I simply mean the use of specific observable actions or events to assist in communicating with others. Consider the first example of the boss who wants more ‘loyalty’ from his staff. The word ‘loyalty’ in this example is merely an abstraction. Even to look up the term in a dictionary is of limited value given that its meaning is context dependent. Perhaps if he had been more explicit, and Page 1
www.firstnationstelegraph.com
used an operational expression in place of the abstraction ‘loyalty’, he may have been more effective in communicating with his staff, and they in turn would have been less frustrated. He could have said something like this: “I think productivity would increase if you could start work on time and return from lunch on time” or “It would be helpful if you could share your ideas with me about how you think we could stay ahead of our competitors”. The girlfriend with the jealous boyfriend could say to him, “If I was your child, frequent phone calls whenever I am not with you would be appropriate. However, I am not your child, so stop it now”. The parents of the teenager could say, “Your mother and I are concerned that what you say you are going to do and what you actually do are very different. As your carers, this makes it difficult for us to give you the freedom which you once had.” My advice for the child would be to tell the parents the following: “Mum, Dad, thank you for telling me that you feel you cannot trust me
Page 2
anymore. What specifically could I do that would enable you to feel confident in providing me with the freedom you once gave me?” I explain all this because I have witnessed time and again over the years how problems result when individuals and groups try to communicate with one another using vague language, particularly when discussing the challenges facing Aboriginal people. With the possibility of a new government, people need to be clear in communicating with leaders what they believe are the problems facing Aboriginal people and what are the solutions. Although maybe well intentioned, expressions like, “We need more self-determination” or “Stop the genocide” are ambiguous statements and need clarification. Providing an operational meaning – that is, saying what we really mean using specifics - will go a long way towards bringing about the change we want. There are further problems. Janet Albrechtsen wrote in The Australian recently (31 July, 2013)
“That’s another tactic. Find a word and demonise it, to demonise your opponents”, and then used the word ‘assimilation’ as an example. While its original meaning may have once been clear as referring to policy and practices which many believe were aimed at stripping Aboriginal people of their culture and identity, the word has now become so stretched beyond that original meaning that some believe that to have Indigenous people in school or mainstream employment is an example of ‘assimilation’ - which of course they believe is evil. The use of language certainly makes life easier. However, when we assume that others hold the meanings of our words that we hold, there is potential for problems in communication. If there is the potential that the meaning of words can be misunderstood, it is helpful for all to operationalise their meaning using specific examples where appropriate. When discussing problems, we may disagree, but at least we will know what we are disagreeing about if we agree on what our words mean.