Of course, subjective assessments of objective phenomena will vary according to the vantage point of the observer (the blind men touching an elephant analogy is oft used to illustrate this point). But the two things are entirely different. One is a materially bounded (social) given; the other is an interpretation of what it is, how it came to be, its suitability, desirability, efficiency etc. It is in the confusion of the subjective and objective elements of social phenomena that much post-modern analysis is flawed, because it is premised on a stretch too far–the primacy of the interpretation (the social “construct”) over the objective features (the social “concept’) of a given phenomenon.

There are terms that are less “objective” than what is described above, and which therefore can quite legitimately be the subject of different interpretations. Take, for example, the concept of “hegemony.” Originally formulated to describe ideological leadership leading to rule by consent within one nation-state (in contradistinction to Lenin’s notion of political domination), the term has been warped by Western international relations theorists to mean the domination of one state actor over others due to superiority in (economic, military, diplomatic) power variables–e.g., the US was the international “hegemon” in the 1990s. In doing so the IR theorists took the concept right back to Lenin (Marxism’s first IR theorist) by returning to domination as the basis for hegemony, rather than consent. But since the concept of “hegemony” is an interpretation in the first place, it is more malleable.

As for terms like “Marxism” that cover an array of economic and political combinations, with some emphasizing the structural aspects and others emphasizing the superstructural aspects of a specific meshing of collective ownership and worker’s rule–that is a label, not a concept. It is meaningless for argumentative purposes.

My post is focused not so much on varying interpretations of widely used concepts, but on the distortion of concepts that describe, define or refer to “objective” social phenomena such as regime types or economic models.

Some do think capitalism means a free market. So “pure” capitalism is something which we have yet to attain.

I mean `pure’ in definition, not in implementation. Waht I’m talking about is not a system as it operates but a concept in discourse. `Pure’ as opposed to `loaded’, though I accept that’s a poor dichotomy.

On the issue of Marxism, not to bring it back up, but I thought it was an example of what Pablo is describing here. That is you were trying to conflate the Khmer Rouge with Marxism.

I don’t want to relitigate either, but you’ve misunderstood the distinction between implementation and theory again. I noted that the worst excesses of socialism (KR, Stalinism, Maoism) as political implementations derived from the power transfer problem in Marxism (how to get the dictatorship representing the proletariat to relinquish their power?). That makes me disinclined to trust Marxism as the basis for a political/economic system in implementation. Nothing against the theory as a means of making sense of political and economic systems and the distribution of power in a society.

L

if I’m arguing with someone about what capitalism means and they think it means a free market and I wish for a free market then is there any point arguing about what capitalism means? (Okay well there is some)

This would suggest to me that one or both the arguers had a poor understanding of `capitalism’ or was using the term with a view to score ideological points rather than trying genuinely to agree on a definition of the term. A lot of the time when people say `capitalism’ they include a bunch of things which necessarily derive from or accompany capitalism the pure concept, and the confusion comes when two people include differing things in the bunch, which then become difficult to reconcile. My point in the comment above is that even the iconic capitalist and the iconic communist can agree, if they’re honest, on what the term `capitalism’ means in a pure sense – the disagreement comes when they try to discuss the implications of that meaning.

Do you remember that argument we had about marxism?

I seem to recall it being about communism (an implementation), not about Marxism (a theory). But yes, and I was trying to make an ideological point about it – not trying to define the issue dispassionately, but trying to argue my evaluation of its worth. That’s useful as well, but it’s a different category of argument.

L

You imply that all readings of a term are equal. I’m not sure I accept that – generally there exist accepted definitions which are rooted in historical or philosophical usage and should transcend polemic usage to a large extent. Shouldn’t a person who is sufficiently familiar with a topic be able to employ a term’s original or core meaning without having to use it as an ideological springboard at every turn?

L

Terms such as those used as examples by Pablo and QtR – socialist, realist, fascist, capitalist – actually have meaning outside of their polemic usage, even if they have become symbolically so loaded as to now be almost impossible to use with a straight face.

L

It is possibly from this, we can move onto the term “politically correct” for the agreed use of the term.

Of course some, such as on Kiwiblog, delight in their political incorrectness, such as calling Greens watermelons – which is just going too far and being provocative.

I found myself agreeing entirely with your post and mentally castigating those who misuse concepts in such ways, only to find that I was the example! Nevertheless, thank you. I’m a bit of a terminology Nazi (heh), but one who tries to live up to the standards I expect of others, so I’m not averse to reflection or critique.

I think this sort of thing is a kind of autodidact’s blind spot, which is to say that people with an imperfect or ad-hoc understanding of a term tend to misuse it without realising that that’s what they’re doing; and indeed with the idea that the stretch doesn’t matter so much as the sense or intent behind the usage, which readers are expected to infer. As you’ve observed on a couple of occasions, international relations isn’t my academic bag – I studied a bit at undergraduate level, but largely I’m self-(mis)taught as an adjunct to my work in symbolic politics (in the case above an earlier draft had included weasel words to the effect that I wasn’t really comparing apples and apples, but I removed them thinking the post was already too verbose).

So it is with most people, who misuse terminology they’ve acquired from an amateur interest in, e.g., politics or sociology or economics because they don’t really know how it can and can’t be used legitimately. Largely we get this from the fact that most of our information comes not from academia, or quality reference material, but from a media system staffed entirely by generalists, jacks-of-all-trades, self-taught pseudo-experts on everything who filter as best they can the complexities of such matters into simple predigested goo for folk to consume.

What’s the cure, though? Should people refrain from using terminology they don’t fully and completely understand? Absent sufficient knowledge of a field, how does one ascertain which uses are correct and which are stretched beyond usefulness? Does including weasel words along the lines of `I know I’m misusing the term, just roll with me here’ serve any sort of purpose?

L