DEFINE THE WORD

Throughout his excellent book FANTASYLAND: HOW AMERICA WENT HAYWIRE, Kurt Andersen refers to Puritans, Pilgrims, Mesmerists, Fundamentalists, Rationalists, Supernaturalists, Empiricists, Relativists, Creationists, Christians, Protestants, Pentecostalists and Charismatics. How many people in this world would have a single clue as to what any of those terms actually reference. Even if we included the difference between Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists and Presbyterians. Would we really know? But they all do have one thing in common: they are all some variation on the continuing evolution of Christianity. Why do I mention them? Because in reading Andersens book I was forced to go to my IPAD word reference, more than once, for the definition of these terms and then think of how that term fit into the theme of his book. Had I not taken the time to look them up, more than once per term, I would not have been able to understand his book. I did look them up, felt I understood his point and therefore could agree with him on almost everything he posited. Had I not taken the time, I would still be in the dark.

Today, as I watched Maureen Sullivan interview John Hickenlooper, former governor of the State of Colorado and a recently announced presidential candidate, I was reminded of these terms in Andersen's book. About religion? No. She asked Hickenlooper if he was a capitalist or a socialist. She asked it in such a way that presumed everyone watching her show, including Hickenlooper, had the same definition of the two words.

When he responded he told her that he had started upwards of 20 businesses, was primarily interested in inspiring  others to raise money and start their own businesses, creating new jobs in the process. It sounded pretty Capitalistic to me. But no, she pressed on,  but would you "say" you are a capitalist? I have no idea how he could answer such a stupid question beyond the fact that he has demonstrated a career as a capitalist, which most of the other candidates can't claim.  She then proceeded to push him on his credentials vis a vis socialism. His response was in the state of Colorado, the vast major of citizens are on some form of universal health care. Now I am not certain but I believe the people who have extended care coverage in his state are quite happy with it and do not need to refer to it as socialism. So why push him on that? He clearly has an interest in the well being of his citizens, without reducing it to a single word.

My point? in the 60's and 70's I developed a theory I have used the theory thought my life. I call it my "accelerator word theory". It means that when a person hears a commonly used word they do not feel the need to have it defined, they simply accelerate to their understanding of what that word means to them. They literally "jump" to their own understanding of the word, forgoing all the possible nuances inherent in the word. When the same words, being used, have different meanings to two or more people then any chance of communication between them no longer exists. From the first mention of such a  word, they are on different planes, therefore have no change of ever agreeing. Take words like, socialism, capitalism, immigrants, muslims, gays and even today expand the concept to terms like patriot, freedom or even religion itself. The variety of meanings that have attached themselves, over the last many decades, to these terms, are so wide and dispirit they have lost their intended purpose in enhancing any form of communication. They have all become pejoratives to some and aspirations to others. But, definitely not the same thing.

If you are on different sides of an argument and want reconciliation, the definitions of the words being used must be agreed on, BEFORE the substance of the discussion can even begin. The biggest offender of this is the media. Maureen Sullivan, in her attempt to appear forceful should have asked the governor if,  "with this as its definition, would you agree you are a Capitalist"? If he agreed with her definition he could clearly claim to be one, or not.  If he did not agree with her definition he could have provided his own and then answered her question.

If media took that tack in their interview process, the interview, which  might take longer, would better inform the viewer and move people closer to a common understanding of the issues and maybe inspire us to be a less divided nation..