Autorenprofil
Current political discourse teems with discussions about language. People get hot-headed about gender-neutral language, street names, what one is “still allowed to say,” and the limits of political correctness. Recently, the German state of Bavaria’s conservative government even went so far as to ban outright gender-neutral spellings in all legal and administrative state regulation, the justification being that such spellings would make official regulations harder to understand.
I will not wade into the gendering debate here. Instead, I wish to make a general point about this type of debate which we recently covered in the MPE, namely: It would be a mistake to take the words we find ourselves with for granted. Instead, we should evaluate our vocabulary, consider whether and how it can be enhanced, and reform it if doing so will lead to an improvement. Which words we ought to use poses genuine and sometimes serious normative questions, and we should treat them as such.
Let me start by illustrating why a word’s meaning can be quite important. Consider the following case: In 2006 the International Astronomical Union changed the meaning of “planet,” such that Pluto no longer qualifies as a planet. Why did they do so? Because this change in meaning made “planet” scientifically more useful: it allowed more precise descriptions of the world, offered more fruitful explanations, and made our astronomical theories better.
Now consider another, slightly more vexed case, where changing the meaning of language could also lead to important improvements. Take “marriage.” “Marriage” is a word with substantial practical significance. In many cultures, marital unions have a privileged status compared to other types of relationships, a status that tends to come with many perks (and not just financial benefits like tax breaks; rather, marriage also tends to reduce administrative burdens, e.g., when immigrating as a couple, or recognising parenthood). Traditionally, though, the meaning of “marriage” has covered only unions between men and women, which contributes to discrimination against same-sex couples. Since discrimination is bad, this speaks for reforming the meaning of “marriage” so as to render it more inclusive. Hence, as this example shows, there can also be moral reasons to change the meaning of our words.
Accordingly, we should not just ask what words actually mean, but what they should mean, given our specific interests, values and objectives. If our terms currently mean something that has problematic implications and there is a better alternative available, we should reform them. Philosophers have come up with a term for this: ‘conceptual engineering’.
How do you find out what a term ought to mean? Here is a plausible picture: First, determine what the term in question allows us to do, such that we have good reasons to use it. Let us call this the term’s ‘function’. For “planet”, this function might be to describe the world. For “marriage”, it might be to organise our social practices in certain ways. Next, consider whether there are specific ways for the term to fulfil its function that are problematic. For example, if “marriage” is used in a way that contributes to discrimination, that would be a problematic way for it to organise social practices. Finally, you have discovered what a term ought to mean if you have identified how it best fulfils its function while avoiding problematic uses.
Of course, how to assess uses and weigh conflicting reasons depends on the details of each individual case. Maybe the reasons for Bavaria’s Government banning gender-inclusive spellings outweigh the moral considerations that speak for introducing such spellings. Importantly, though, cases such as these must be evaluated on the basis of good reasons, where these can be related to getting a better grasp of the world as well as moral considerations.
Hence, questions about which words we ought to use are important normative questions, and we should treat them as such. We must seek them out by actively reflecting on our current vocabulary, face them heads-on, and investigate them carefully and systematically.
Frankfurt School gGmbH
Adickesallee 32-34
60322 Frankfurt am Main
