Off the Map

Typically when you think of definitions, you probably think of those little phrases that trail terms in the dictionary.^{1, 2}  We are going to look at the process of defining a term (synonymous for now with “defining a word”) to see if we can better understand the process and take some mystery out of it. My hope is that after a new understanding of definitions, we’ll better be able to understand their practical value to us.

I’ll start by just laying some things out there:

What’s a term? A term is a word or phrase that stands for a concept.

Well, what’s a concept? A concept is an image in a person’s head.

This image can be thought of as a collection of important characteristics. Imagine an orange. When you think of an orange, you probably think of something round, with a dimply rind, orange in color. There are many more characteristics associated with a real-life orange, but you only imagine a relatively limited amount. The amount is probably not quantifiable other than to say what you think of is finite, and the number of actual characteristics a real-life physical orange has is infinite. The point is that the image in your head of an orange is abstract relative to an actual physical orange.

What’s a definition, then? A definition can be non-verbal (as in pointing at an orange and saying “That’s what I mean”). But usually we think of a definition as verbal (as in explaining “This is what I mean when I say ‘orange’…”). Let’s just pay attention to verbal definitions for now.

So, what’s a definition? A definition is a word or phrase that aims to help someone conceptualize a term.

That is, a definition is goal-directed behavior. That goal is to help someone else conceptualize a term. So agendas can come into play when defining a term. That agendas come into play is not necessarily an evil thing, it’s just something to note. When someone is defining a term, he may have personal or professional agendas he is trying to forward; he is not speaking absolute truth about “thee meaning of the term.”

With the above understood, let’s now look into the process of defining a term.  Let’s say we use the term “heebie jeebies” in a sentence. And let’s say we use it in a sentence heard by Larry, who’s not all that familiar with English, who is still learning words here and there. We use the term “heebie jeebies” in a sentence, and we see Larry’s brow furrow. He presumably doesn’t understand the term. No image comes to mind for him. He has no concept for the term “heebie jeebies.”  So this is when we go about seeking to clarify for Larry what we mean by this term.  We define the term.

To understand the term “definition,” think of an old television.  It has a particular definition to it.  Now think of a high-definition television.  It has improved definition.  The implication is that definition has to do with clarification of an image.  We are doing essentially the same thing when we define a term for Larry.   Larry has little to no image in his head when we use a particular term, so we define the term, and as a result Larry has a clearer image of what we mean when we use the term.  Put differently,when we define a term, we clarify a concept.

But when we define a term, we use more terms, which is to say that when we define a term, we depend on other concepts to clarify a particular concept.  When we define “heebie jeebies” as “feeling as if your skin is crawling,” this string of words we give, gives Larry images in his head.  From this combination of images, Larry can get a better sense of what is meant by the term “heebie jeebies.”  So, when we say “heebie jeebies,” and define it as “feeling as if your skin is crawling,” the next time we say “heebie jeebies,” Larry will bring to mind the image of that feeling.

Here is where agendas come into play.  If I have an interest in Larry understanding the feeling of heebie jeebies, I’ll define “heebie jeebies” as “feeling as if your skin is crawling.”  But if my goal is different–as in having an interest in Larry seeing heebie jeebies from a scientific perspective–I’ll define “heebie jeebies” in neuro-chemical terms.  If my goal is different still–as in having an interest in Larry seeing heebie jeebies from a terpsichorean perspective–I’ll define “heebie jeebies” in choreographical terms.  That is, depending on my interests, I’ll provide in my definitions concepts (terms) aligned with my interests.  I’ll call this phenomenon “the principle of definition bias.”

Here is where things can get really interesting.  I’ve had a big problem with how depression is characterized in commercials.  In at least one commercial I’ve seen for a prescription drug, I’ve heard the term “depression” defined as “a chemical imbalance.”  When we apply the principle of definition bias to this definition, we immediately admit (as well as see) that there is a biased, goal-aligned perspective of depression being forwarded in the definition.  That perspective is biased in seeing depression in one way but not other ways.  (For example, depression is not seen in emotional terms, or functional terms, or practical terms, but instead in chemical terms.)  When we call to mind that there is a prescription drug being sold, you can see how the definition of “depression” as “a chemical imbalance” is a convenient way to define “depression.”  By defining “depression” as “a chemical imbalance,” well, it “makes sense” to fight the chemical imbalance with balancing chemicals.  That is, with the drug being marketed . . .

You can probably tell I see the bias in the definition of the term “depression” as inimical.  But definition isn’t always inimical: It can be seen as organizational.  An organization (whether it be an organization of many people or an organization of just you) has goals.  In having those goals, the organization takes on particular perspectives about various things in its path.  It defines terms relative to its goals, whether it does it actively or passively (accidentally).  Essentially, it organizes its life around its goals and consistent with its goals.  It might see value in something that you don’t value because some of your goals differ.

Just look at the waste management industry.  It sees value in those black garbage bags you call “trash.”  Its goal is to collect what your goal is to throw out.  You define as “trash” what it defines as “bounty.”  And taking on your bias about black garbage bags would probably sink the waste management industry.  Instead, it organizes black garbage bags differently than you do.

We can make a more general characterization about definitions and say that definitions are strategic.  They can be inimical, they can be organizational, they can be any number of things, but generally speaking, they are strategic, meaning they are aligned to aid the achievement of our goals.  Definitions are not “truths,” disembodied from human construction.  Instead, they are very human, and in being very human, they are biased by humans, and in particular, biased by their goals.

What we’re talking about essentially when talking about definitions is conceptualization.  Definitions are concepts about concepts.  How we conceptualize (define) things has effects on our behavior.  These effects can be to our advantage.  They can be to our disadvantage.  They can affect our speed, our comfort, our confidence, etc.  The effects can be immediate, less immediate, eventual, etc.  But the general point is that definition has human effects, social consequences, etc.

We need to be aware of the principle of definition bias.  We need to take a critical eye to the definitions we hear, rather than blindly accepting them. We need to know that goals operate when defining terms, and definitions aren’t without the hint of goals.  But taking a critical eye doesn’t mean all-out rejecting definitions; it just means to consider the goals and whether we respect the goals in the ways the definer does.

NOTES

1. You refer to this phrase as “the meaning of the term.” So, a meaning and a definition are pretty much the same in your head.

The word “definition” is bit better of a term than the word “meaning.” Why? The word “meaning” has a lot of different, um, meanings, so it can be a bit confusing what its, um, definition is.

For example, words can have meanings, but also can actions, and also can stories, and also results, and so on. Each kind of thing represented by the word “meaning” differs pretty significantly that you kinda havta distinguish what you imply by the word “meaning” when you use it if you’re having any kind of serious, technical conversation.

Else, inevitably, the word “meaning” starts getting misapplied and confusing. If you’re just talking about word-meanings, in a conversation someone can start thinking about action-meanings and try to apply the same logic of word-meanings to action-meanings. That would be like trying to apply the same logic of color-orange to fruit-orange. The color orange does not grow on trees. Likewise, the action-meaning does not trail words in the dictionary.

So we prefer to use the word “definition” instead of the word “meaning.”

2. We should note that dictionaries, at least in theory, are descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is, they are resources that document how terms have been used historically; they show roughly how particular terms were defined in the past. Dictionaries, at least in theory, are not legislators of definitions. That is, they do not determine what a term “should” mean. This essay talks about the prescriptive nature of definition. In my opinion, more often people operate in this mode and less often operate in the descriptive mode. That is, people talk about what they mean, and in so doing determine what a particular term “should” mean, at least when they use the term. People don’t strictly talk in a way consistent with historical dictionary definitions.

See also: definition, meaning