It is unfortunate that our understanding of politics is so poor. I do not mean our practical understanding. I mean our theoretical understanding. But our theoretical understanding has consequences. There is a problem because our theoretical understanding, if badly constructed, plays havoc with our practical understanding.
Everyone – politicians, philosophers – assumes that words have straightforward meanings. Philosophers because they want them to, and hope they could, and politicians because they need them to. Both philosophers and politicians want to do things with words. But what we need, as I always say, is a bit more philology: attention to words, their caressiveness, their seductiveness, their capacity for infidelity.
The first law of all politics is that all words in politics are ambiguous. They are ambiguous for three reasons: 1. because they may be used by someone trying to do something in politics or may be used by someone trying to understand something about politics without doing something in politics; 2. because, whatever the case, all language is fundamentally ambiguous: since no word, a priori, can be shown, ora posteriori, has ever been shown, to have a perfect definition; and 3. because we, the users of words, may just as easily not tell the truth as tell the truth: that is to say, I might say what I do not mean.
All words in politics are ambiguous. Including ‘politics’. If you don’t believe me, consider this. Some major theorists of politics in the 20th century defined politics as-if-it-included-government,
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Dosn’t it follow that politics needs literature? For what better than our classic literature shows us the proper and inevitable variability of the meaning of words? ‘Look, don’t think’ (Did Wittgenstein say that?) as our classic writers do, and you’ll never again dream of fixing words to precise and unvarying definitions.
Well that’s a fine waste of my time. I had rather hoped for a more reasoned article that would explain how Starmer’s words end up being the polar opposite of his actions, how Reeves is taxing us more, why Milibrain is putting up our fuel bills, how this Government would have a lighter touch, why they would govern for the country and not the party or self and there would be an end to scandals. Sadly what I got was an essay that has gone completely over my ‘university of life’ head. Perhaps I needed an Oxbridge degree to fully understand what I was being told
Definition of “politics” is simple: tyranny, greed, graft, grift, corruption and bribery.
The answer must be to accord a great deal less power, money and respect to the practitioners of authority. How about:
I wish to be governed well
He wants to rule over me
Starmer is a despot.
Let’s face it – us humans are just as easily manipulated “Now” as we ever were ! Romans nailed people to crosses, Spanish did Inquisitions , Puritans dipped Witches ,then came 20th Century Germany / Russia / China – Whoa 😳 now I’ve got Billy Joel starting a Fire in my head 😵💫🤪
In Yes Minister in 1986 they were referred to as irregular verbs:
I have an independent mind
you are an eccentric
he is round the twist
A reminder that whatever we think of the world today, it was ever thus.
And then you need arithmetic, mathematics, and money to tighten it up a bit. Hardly anything physical is built on languages alone, after all.
I think I have just wasted 10 minutes of my life reading this.