Over dinner tonight, my father disagreed with my use of the word 'system' to describe our military and the global method used by nations to sometimes settle disputes (more specifically, war). At first I was surprised and would have inquired about his objection further, but these days dad tends to steer clear from conflict in discussions regarding politics. He had already changed the subject by the time I thought to ask, "What word would you use?"
During our ride home, I realized that our disagreement was probably more one of semantics rather than an actual disagreement (although I'll never know as I can't imagine that we'll revisit the conversation). There is a very good chance that my father interprets the word 'system' differently than I do, and that if we had identified a more concise definition rather than relying on a word, which can have different meanings to both of us, we might have come to a better understanding of the other's' view.
So many arguments can be started by misunderstandings. Arguments can be avoided if we take the time to communicate our thoughts or arguments clearly, or prevent ourselves from jumping to conclusions... using our own meanings to blanketly interpret another's words, instead of really trying to understand what the person is trying to say.
So the following is my part of the conversation I wish I could have had with dad.
Semantics, or our meanings of words, are not only gained by our learning and experiences, but also later influence our understandings of the different constructs and experiences of our lives. People can sometimes think of the structures of our lives as static and definite, impervious to change. I can subscribe to those viewpoints as well, but it is usually a somewhat momentary characterization that I am forced to reassess when presented with a much more grounded 'truism;' things change. When confronted with that truism, I often have to reassess my definition of a construct.
Among other definitions, systems can be used as a noun (such as a family or community system) or a verb (interactions between two or more entities). Despite of the context for one's use of system, it seems there is always an interaction between two (or more) groups (ex: families and communities both consist of members). As such, while one can describe a given system at a specific time, what social scientists refer to as operational definitions, over time, the system will probably change. In fact, as the members of different systems change, the system itself is bound to change with time.
The 'system' of the military as a noun can be analysed from many different levels: the different branches of the military, the hierarchy within one branch, and international perspectives, such as with work with other countries on a global level. So, as referenced earlier, one cannot precisely talk about the 'system' of the military without defining precisely what level of the system the person is addressing. The system of the military also changes as new groups, such as women, men and women of color, and more recently, gay and lesbian women are accepted into their ranks. The system of the military, as a noun, is bound to change.
War is just one example of a system of military interaction... a method the military has established to conduct business with other militarizes. Of course other systems of interactions exist between militaries: with allies, training; with threatening nations, spying; with nations recovering from war, peace-building, among many other potential systems. For the purposes of dialog, not only must one identify the system and level of interaction one is addressing when talking about military systems, but these systems... methods, if you will, of interaction can shift and change over time as enemies become allies and vice verse.
This is such a poor description of systems (and I won't even start on my true love, dynamical systems, systems within systems and their 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' influence on each other). But holy cow. To have truly made my point clear to my father and to engage in a more transparent and coherent understanding of each other's points, I would have had to share this information with him, and then I would have had to hear his perspective; I would have benefited from understanding his definitions and histories regarding the use of the word 'system' and his preferred vocabulary.
No wonder people so often misunderstand each others' points and can't move past seemingly minute hang-ups. Understanding each other isn't just about the argument itself, but the words we use to represent our points; People can be misunderstood at both levels.
I do think reaching an understandings, if not necessarily agreements, is worthwhile. I don't like blowing off an argument as merely a question of "semantics."
No comments:
Post a Comment