Great post by rhetorician Gail Hapke at Scribal Terror, which I’m going to reprint here in its entirety:
No debate can occur without agreement on the terms of that debate. That is a basic principle of human discourse. That is why we have specific words that mean specific things—so we can agree on what we are talking about. “A definition,” said Demosthenes, “is the beginning of knowlege.” I would add that the lack of a definition is the very definition of ignorance.
In the past few days, the national debate has been not simply hampered but utterly perverted by the lack of agreement on simple factual terms. One example is the term “looter.” There are many different types of looters, and they engage in many different kinds of looting, but basically we can narrow these types down to two: desperation looters and predatory looters.
Desperation looters are those who take what they need to support life in the absence of normal channels of trade. These people are essentially scavenging in order to survive. Predatory looters are those who see the breakdown of civilized restraints as an opportunity to pillage.
Most of the polity agree that desperation looters are to be excused under the extreme circumstances in which they find themselves. Most of the polity also agree that predatory looters must be dealt with sternly and decisively, especially those who threaten relief efforts.
The challenge in our national debate is that the term “looters” is permitted to shift back and forth within individual arguments, so that a person who advocates shooting people who are, say, attacking rescuers in order to take their flat bottomed boats is answered as if he were advocating the summary execution of people carrying off loaves of bread or bandages.
This shameful rhetorical technique is called equivocation:
Equivocal use of words is fallacious because it invites us to transfer what we are prepared to accept about one concept onto another one which happens to have the same name. Logic, which processes relationship between concepts, is useless if the concepts themselves change.
In the present situation, in my opinion, equivocation borders on truly sinful civic negligence.
Indeed—though I’d probably quibble with the word “negligence,” as I’m not so kind as Gail and tend to recognize in many of those doing the equivocating a willful act of distortion intended to forestall debate and punish those not hip enough to get behind anarchy, particularly when its very real effects won’t reach those who are advocating for it in the abstract.
Addendum: To those like Air America’s Randi Rhodes, who spent the first few days after the disaster actively encouraging the “poor people of New Orleans” to loot high-end retailers, I would say that when the death toll is finally tabulated, just be thankful that—even under the best of broadcasting situations (like, for instance, when New Orleans had power to run radios)—very few people listen to you anyway, and so you won’t have any actual blood on your hands.
Though when it comes to civil discourse, it’s often times simply the thought that counts…
****
update: Other great stuff over at Gail’s place that I haven’t pilfered in its entirety, including this message from a frustrated rescue worker, and this bit of logistical solemnity from a former Red Cross worker.
Disambiguation is so important.
One of the great things about the English language is that it undergoes a continuous process of desynonymization – words that have similar meanings eventually take on distinct connotations.
Ummm, Jeff, not to go all Zen here, but wouldn’t the poor people in New Orleans actually have to hear Randi’s words of encouragement for those words to have any practical effect?
Didn’t I say as much, BS?
Gail is absolutely brilliant. Her blog is a must read for me.
Goodness, Scott, that makes me go all tingly.
I hope it’s not bad manners to bandwagon praise you and Scribal Terror…but you ARE brilliant, and you deserve an after-tingle.
Isn’t this usually where Jeff adds a “HELLO”?????
Every night, I do a 10 minute sample of Randi Rhodes, but this week she has just gone beyond the moonbat level. Her Cindy stuff was up there with performance art, but this week I get sorta violent listening to her. I do a little test – switching between her and the local conservative channel. Comparing their messages. Randi is BASH BUSH all the time, and the conservative station is drumming up compassion and (financial) support for the victims. I find the dichotomy interesting.
Jeff said hi over at my place.
After a Katrina-scale disaster , you need 50 words for looting, the way those eskimos need 50 words for snow.
SarahW, that’s brilliant. You are so right.
How many words do we need for ‘armadillo’?
Good one, Hood.
wow, it is friday isn’t it? i could use some cheering up.
I have tried listening to Randi Rhodes a few times and I must confess, I get the shivers thinking about what kind of talents she must possess to keep that job.
Rhodes was actually encouraging looting? What type of through-the-looking-glass world is this?
I was just now thinking about a debate. One where a true pacifist, who renounces all violence, is debating one who says violence is necessary to stop the violation of laws, and for self-defense.
Or was it fantasizing? In a pleasant nightmare sort of way.
Where the self-defense advocate goes across the room, violates the rules of the debate, and holds and hits the pacifist until the pacifist agrees self-defense justifies violence.
[Well, I really WAS thinking this. This post on “words” and meaning seemed a reasonable place to put it. Like Butch Cassidy in a knife fight: “first, let’s get the rules straight”
– “no rules, ughhhh” (kicked in the balls—can’t be against the “no rules”!)]