The Imperfection of Communication

Words mean different things to different people, and these differences in interpretation really suck when you're trying to communicate complex ideas. I think that pretty much synthesizes much of Locke's argument. He informs us that "the very nature of words makes it almost unavoidable for many of them to be doubtful and uncertain in their significations" (Locke 817 9.1). He then goes on to explain that this unavoidable confusion is most pronounced where a great number of ideas converge, no standard in nature exists, a standard is involved which is not understood fully, and the word in use does not match the essence of a thing (Locke 818 9.5). Only simple ideas escape the majority of this confusion, as they represent "one single perception" (Locke 823 9.18). From Locke's point of view, humans are stumbling about with incomplete knowledge and, most importantly for rhetoric, without the language necessary to make meaning clearly known beyond a recognition of simple things like the color yellow. As ideas become more substantial, words become even less able to clearly portray them. How inspiring.

However, I can't help but agree with Locke on many counts. It is difficult at times to decipher exactly what other people mean when they speak or write, as illustrated by the common need to define terms and give further explanation suggest. I would, though, insist to a greater extent on the connection between unclear communication and divergent thought processes, knowledge, and beliefs. Humans don't all think the same way or the same things, and the words they have devised to communicate and share with one another reflect the same lack of accord. Even simple ideas like the color yellow are not truly uniform and have a depth of complexity. What shade of yellow, after all, does the word yellow signify? But the same imperfection of communication must still be acknowledged, whether the fault is primarily in words or thoughts. Now, let's examine these imperfections at work within a concept that many deem important: love.

What is love between partners? Whenever, I hear someone use the word love when talking about a girlfriend/boyfriend/acquaintance they adore I want to tell them to pull his/her pony to a stop so we can examine the terrain. What, sir or madam, do you refer to when you say you love someone? Does it have to imply a certain closeness of the spirit or mind, a bond that is eternal and cannot be broken? Does it mean that one would give his life to his partner? Check out the Jane Eyre video below to see what two people who see love in this way may take it to mean. Or can love mean something else, perhaps more attuned to a close physical bond with someone else that can be accomplished without much emotional connection but with a great deal of physical dependence? In essence, love can mean enchantment with someone's body. After all, people still refer to "making love" or "love making." See the second video below where the word "love" is replaced by "like" to illustrate one attempt to differentiate between types of relationships (WARNING: That video is suggestive, though it has no nudity or revealing sex scenes.).

 

Of course, there are many, many shades of grey when using the term "love." My love may not be your love, and the term cannot do exactly what we mean justice. But again, I do not believe that all the blame lies with the terminology. It's also about us, and what we think, feel, and believe. We would need an indecipherable amount of terms to differentiate between all of our beliefs about love, and it's simply not possible. For one, we would be unable to understand everyone's views in spite of the different terms. It would be like explaining colors to a blind man (Locke 818 9.5). And so, we must remain limited by both our words and ideas.