Communication: common definitions are required

     It seems to have accelerated over the past ten years but there have always been many obstacles to communication. Emotions often stop us from communicating clearly. Some people are shy and have difficulty speaking up and drawing attention to themself. Some stutter, have trouble hearing, or have other physical impediments. But all of these are problems with initiating communication. Once we have started talking, or signing, or using drum signals, or whatever we still have the situation where we want to exchange information with other people, or another person.

     In order to exchange information, we present the information. This can take various forms. It can be via sound — words with individual phonemes. It can be via signals — morse code via electrical wire, light beacons from mountaintop to mountaintop. drum rhythms and codes, finger movements either via touch or sight, and so forth.

The information must then move from the generating location to the receiving location. A light signal cannot succeed if something is in between the generator and the receiver. An electrical signal cannot work if there is no power. A vocal shout may not be heard clearly if the background noise includes a large crowd or a nearby thunderstorm.

     The next step is reception. Someone who is deaf cannot hear an audible signal, or voice, no matter how loud it is shouted (but they may be able to read lips in a possible scenario). An electrical signal only works if the other end has something to decode it.

     We now get to the center of this newsletter. There is a very large difference between hearing something, listening to something, and understanding something. The first is associated with the transmission, as talked about above. But the second is a matter of attention. My ears may hear the noises of speech but if I am thinking about next week’s menu and grocery list, I may not note anything of what has been said. If my eyes are turned a different direction from a light beacon then, not seeing it, I cannot possibly extract meaning from the signal.

     We have seen how many steps are needed to get a message from one person to another such that they are now ready to understand, and use, the information. The final hurdle may be hard to believe because — surely — if they have received, and listened to, the message they must know.

     Even if both are speaking the same language, the receiver is placed into a position of needing to decode the information — even if it appears that you are both speaking the same language. The more aspects that are the same between you, the better chance you will be understood but words are understood based upon familiarity with the language, the histories of the speaker and the receiver, and the general environment and background of how they use the word. If it is not the same for the speaker as it is for the receiver, it can appear that they are communicating when, in fact, no information is being passed along.

     Words have definitions. Almost no one uses the same precise meaning as in the dictionary. Someone who is as detail-oriented as I am may have a better chance of using words in the same manner as officially detailed but that does not give me a much better chance of being understood by another who uses a completely different definition. Some words that are currently being used in speech that no longer have universally agreed upon meanings appear to be:

• conservative

• liberal

• progressive

• radical

• socialism

• pro-life

• pro-choice

• fascism

• totalitarianism/authoritarianism

• woke

• democracy

• liberty

• freedom

     If I talk with someone who declares themselves to be liberal, I do not know what that means to them. Thus, I cannot have a discussion about liberalism. The same thing holds for conservative. Certainly, the working definition of conservative is completely different from that of someone calling themselves conservative in 1970. People can, and do, use the word socialism as an insult without having the slightest idea as to what socialism is or how it relates to modern society.

     Society within the U.S. is quite divisive right now — and some segments of the political community want it to remain divisive (or to be even more divisive). They succeed as they eliminate common definitions of words — eliminating the possibility of discussion of various topics. The only method of progress, in my opinion, is to back away from the words which are supposed to indicate types of actions or thoughts and use those words that have, as of yet, escaped the scrambling of definitions. Instead of liberal, one can use those components of being liberal such as support of unions, support of people pursuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, support of equality of access to resources and the opportunity to improve their situation, and so forth. Instead of democracy, one can talk about the ability for all legally qualified voters to submit their input, the need for creating common solutions that all can live with, and the willingness to abide by the laws as determined within those democratic procedures.

     Of course, as a writer and a person who loves words, I would prefer that we reclaim the definitions of words and use them as defined. But, even when one earnestly attempts to keep in mind the definitions within accepted dictionaries, words will always have different nuances based upon personal history and environment.

     Communication only takes place when the ideas, and thoughts, are mutually understood. Not easy in the best of times — and these do not appear to be the best of times.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Labels and marketing: what's in a name?

     This blog is about marketing -- and marketing is about politics (and politics is about marketing). Most people think of politics as about politicians and other elected officials. Most people think of marketing as being for/against commercial products and other types of physical objects that can be transferred. Yet, we talk about marketing a candidate and politics are basically a matter of forming/creating, and expressing, views on various subjects. They are inseparable.

     So, this is a warning. If you don't want to read a blog about politics then don't read this blog. Some examples will be about commercial products and other examples will be about current events and, admittedly subjective, aspects of current society.

     Sometimes marketing is used as a short term for marketing media which is about HOW the marketing materials are distributed -- television, pamphlets, advertising within other social media (movies, plays, ...), and so forth. This is different from the marketing content and I won't be talking about marketing media (at least, not in this blog). Marketing is also closely related to sales -- and I won't be talking directly about sales. This blog is about marketing and labels -- the words that contain the concepts that you want to have others absorb.

     As mentioned above, marketing is basically a matter of creating/forming views on various subjects. The person, or group, that is doing the marketing will have an object view -- what she, or he, wants you to have as the final thought about the item being marketed. Candidate X is the best. Product Y makes your clothes cleaner. Legislation G will make you safer.

     The following bullet items are concerned with categories of methods used to make labels more effective -- more likely to achieve the desires of the people creating the labels. It is meant to include the more important methods but certainly will not contain all of them. Please note that, although examples are taken from the U.S, examples abound from around the world -- in my research, I have found items from Canada, France, the U.K., and Germany.

• Obfuscation -- this is a $20 word for making things less clear. Clarity is sometimes desired within marketing and, at other times, it is strongly not desired. In general, if there is one side then there is the opposite. Gas-conserving versus gas-guzzling. But "gas-guzzling" isn't appealing so that might get ignored and "powerful" would be used instead.
  
  For a controversial social/religious area, the sides should be "pro-choice" versus "anti-choice" or "anti-life" versus "pro-life". But, even though it is accurate, "anti-choice" isn't something that is marketable. The people opposing the "pro-life" people are strongly supportive of all phases of life, including the post-birth lives of the woman and fully-developed child -- so "anti-life" is not at all accurate.
  
  In most cases, obfuscation can only occur when the media allow it to happen. Many times, the media will actually assign the labels and they often do so based on "catchiness" rather than attempted accuracy.
• Conciseness versus Self-explanatory and perspective. Shorter descriptions are more easily remembered. "Jingles" are short phrases that are easy to remember (and, often, sung) and get associated with a product. Hashtags are now used to give a short, compact, indication of the subject matter. A difference of perspective can mean that a concise term does not have sufficient information to be self-explanatory.
  
  The term #BlackLivesMatter was created based on the reality that, currently, the lives of black people, poor people, Hispanic people, and First Nation ("Indian", Native, indigenous, ...) people do not matter very much to the U.S. justice system. Their deaths are under-investigated and legal matters are not treated with equal importance. They are also profiled and subjected to laws that are directed specifically towards their communities. They are over-represented in the for-profit prison system.
  
  (What do for-profit systems try to do? Increase demand -- which, in this case, means to increase the numbers of people imprisoned and it is much easier to do that with less-powerful segments of the population.)
  
  People who are not in these groups assume that the groups of people are treated in a similar way to the way that they are treated -- thus they respond that #AllLivesMatter which, unfortunately, is not accurate. It is true that #AllLivesSHOULDMatter. If the original hashtag had been #BlackLivesAlsoMatter would that have headed off some of the arguments? A concise label may be accurate but, without appropriate history and perception, may not be sufficiently clear.
• Inferences -- drawing on history and associations. The Patriot Act (and the Patriot missile) have no direct connection to anything "patriotic". By associating the name to the legislation and product, the associations that people have with the word can be connected, in people's thoughts, to the product. Local company names that have their local city, or neighborhood, as part of their name tend to attract more business.
• Avoidance of "hot words" by redirection. Some words are associated with negative things by the majority of a population. In the U.S., such hot words include "socialism" and "welfare". So, if you are going to promote a new taxpayer-funded airport, you do NOT use the word "socialism" (which it is) -- instead you use the less direct "subsidized". If a new factory needs special utility lines (electricity) and water lines that are taxpayer-funded, they are "expanding infrastructure" even if it is specifically for use by the company which does not pay for it. "Welfare" is a bad word when used for helping individuals -- so the word is not used when corporations are subsidized.
• Newspeak -- the way of using language for redirecting thoughts. This is closely related to obfuscation but is more deliberate. Newspeak was described in the book 1984 by George Orwell. A more complete list can be found in the Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Newspeak_words.
  
  "Right to Work" laws actually reduce the wages, and freedom, to work for a living. The phrase "Anti-Union" is much more accurate but not as easily sold. The "Internet Freedom" act moves the control of the Internet to large corporations -- thus actually reducing the freedoms of the consumers.
  
  Much of the transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1% has been done under Newspeak titled Legislation labels. Who has time to read a 2,000 page bill when the extremely inaccurate and misleading title "Help out the Middle Class Act" (not the actual name of a bill, as far as I know) says it all?
  
  Newspeak also deals with the re-writing of history. Don't like what actually happened 50 years ago? Change the history books to indicate something different. Does a book written 100 years ago use language that is no longer acceptable? Rewrite the book to be currently acceptable. This is related to labeling as it is possible, with effective marketing, to change the current meaning of a word. For example, the word "gay" is no longer used in the U.S. to indicate happy and joyous. The label has changed because the underlying meaning has been diverted.
• Irrelevant but popular associations. A carbonated beverage (soda, pop, soda pop, sparkling drink -- regional names) can be marketed as "gluten-free". Carbonated beverages almost never have gluten but, since many people now consider gluten to be bad, a marketing method can include saying what "bad" things are NOT included. "This soda is gluten-free, cyanide-free, lead-free, and contains all the vitamins that start with the letter B".

     Labels are a way of marketing products and ideas. As an aspect of language, they make use of -- and form -- the ways that we think about those subjects. If we are aware of what we are doing when we create labels, they can be more effective -- and, if we are aware of what others are doing when they create labels, we can make it less easy to be misled.

    Are you aware of other methods that labels can be used, or misused, within the world in which you live? How much do labels affect the way you think about things?

History isn't what it used to be -- it never was

   History is a tale of what has happened. But is it really what happened? How do we know? What is the evidence? If we have records of what has happened what about records of what did not happen?

   In the Harry Potter series, the instructor of History is dry and boring and most students in the class don't pay a lot of attention -- until something from out of history seems to pop up once again in the present. This happens with the Chamber of Secrets. But really, the same thing happens to people all the time -- they lose track of what has happened in the past until it starts to happen again in the present and then SOME people recall the events in the past. There is the notion of people remembering the past in advance of events occurring -- an attempt to prevent old mistakes from happening again. But this rarely happens. Fashions cycle. Historical events cycle. Political environment cycles.

   One thing that does bother many people is an active attempt to hide history of which we no longer find acceptable. School systems start to change books to remove the realities of human slavery in the past (and deny the occurrence of present day slavery). Videos are actively altered to sway opinion and emotions. Some people try to deny past atrocities in spite of hundreds, thousands, or even millions of witnesses. Books are edited to make the language of the times in which they were written change to reflect the attitudes of the present. There have been many stories and novels written about such attempts -- often by governments but sometimes by active minorities. But it is very likely there have already been changes actively made that no one influential has noticed.

   Another area in which history does not match what happened in the past is something that might be a coincidence (and might not) which is that (in English) history is very similar to "his story". And it is true that history is predominantly a story of males and male events. Possibly this is because patriarchal (run by males) societies have dominated the past. Perhaps it is because males have been more likely to learn to read and write. It is certainly true that many inventions and creations have happened by women and been uncredited. Check out books such as "Mothers of Invention" (by Ethlie Ann Vare and Greg Ptacek) and "Underside of History" (by Elise Boulding).

    Another problem with resolving the accuracy of history is that of translation of primary documents -- those records that were produced at the time of the events. Who wrote those documents -- probably the "winners" of conflicts. What happened from the point of view of the losers? Decimation of the First Nations in the American continents or the subjugation of the Ainu in the Japanese islands or the aborigines in Australia all have forcibly cut out a good section of the ability to balance the events of history.

   Even recognizing that only the "winners" and the powerful usually have their documents preserved -- language is not independent of the context of the times. If I write a sentence in English today then that very same set of words is unlikely to have had the same meaning 500 years ago and is unlikely to have the same meaning 500 years in the future. It is horrendously difficult to be able to know what was meant within a language within a context that is no longer present. Books that are the bases of religion often expose this fragility.

   In my own family, I recognize how much knowledge as been lost. Where did my mother meet my father? Where was their first date? (I don't know.) What was the occupation of my multi-maternal great-great-great grandfather? What color did he like best? Who fired the first bullet between the Hatfields and the McCoys? Certainly these may be "unimportant" pieces of information but there is no longer a way to know -- the knowledge has been lost.

   So, our ability to know what has happened in the past can only be an approximation. Sometimes things are changed deliberately. Often the documents that are saved reflect only a narrow set of perspectives. The understanding of the meaning of documents and language change through the years. And, in general, much is lost because more was lost from knowledge than was recorded. So, if I read an article in a newspaper or book about a current event and they refer to historical aspects -- I can read it and recognize that that is how people think about the history. It may, or may not, be a reflection of what really happened.

   But that is not an excuse to not try to do better in the future.