In the beginning was the word

As sometimes happens, an episode of LoveLife.digital, the podcast series Alvean Lyons and I created, began playing on the car audio the other day. The topic was intimacy, and as so often was the case, Alvean and I were in violent agreement though we came at the topic from slightly different perspectives. For those who are not familiar with our podcasts, Alvean holds multiple doctorates in psychology and counseling, while I speak largely from life experience. It is one of many contrasts between us, though I cannot recall there being any daylight between us on the things that matter in relationships.

In this instance we were discussing the ways in which the contemporary use of the word, intimacy, had been reduced to mean a single dimension of human experience; the physical expression of love. It got me thinking about the broader issue; how words have either lost their meaning or been perverted to the point they appear to mean the exact opposite of what they originally expressed. The use of the word woke comes immediately to mind. What was once a word that conveyed an awakening to truth, has come to mean something decidedly negative in the vernacular of the right. It is as if being conscious of others, empathetic or respectful of our differences is suddenly a crime against humanity.

These are not the only words which have been hijacked by ideological cant. Patriotism is another of those heavily freighted words that has lost its original meaning. True patriotism once represented a devotion to a spirit of inalienable rights and freedoms perhaps most emphatically symbolized by Patrick Henry's famous quote. Today, more often than not it is an expression of jingoistic adherence to a cult like doctrine that aspires to nothing, believing that our country is exceptional and entitled above all others.

The words we use and how we use them speak volumes about us and our view of the world. At one point in my career, I was asked to lead discussions among a disparate group of representatives of non-profit organizations in the wake of a financial reversal in our industry. Most of my career had been spent in the business world so when I spoke about supporters of our cause I chose to refer to them as customers, instead of the traditional term, constituents. I was immediately corrected--and used that moment to ask what those in the room believed to be the difference. It was an illuminating conversation.

Most of those who had spent their careers entirely in the non-profit sector saw customers as casual and transactional while constituents, to their mind, were those motivated entirely by altruistic purpose. But when we began to unpack those sentiments, it was far more nuanced. Customers can have loyalties that are altruistic in nature--such as supporting local merchants over big box stores--even when the cost of doing so is greater. And it is also the case that some supporters of non-profit causes have a transactional expectation--even if it is a benefit conferred on others instead of or in addition to themselves.

My intentional choice of the word customers sparked the discussion I had hoped for. It begged the question what do our supporters expect of us as a condition of their continued financial support? The ensuing dialog shone a light on our value to the public, forcing us to step away from pat phrases and trite explanations. It was an object lesson in the importance of choosing one's words carefully and consciously.

In 1st John, we are told that "in the beginning was the word". I've heard several interpretations of that phrase, some suggesting that the word refers to the breath of life by which God created the Universe, and still other theological explications that the word was Jesus made manifest by God's life giving breath. Whether one subscribes to either of these explanations or not, language is not a casual thing. If the meaning of words is ephemeral, than how do we arrive at agreement about anything?

Two linguists, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf are perhaps the most recognized proponents of what has often been described as linguistic relativism. In simple terms, they suggest that the language we speak influences our world views. In contrast, linguistic determinism argues a finite relationship between words and human thought. Wherever one comes out on the subject, one thing is abundantly clear. Co-opting words, changing their use or introducing contrary meanings heralds a shift in world view that both echoes and presages a shift in our collective philosophy about the world in which we live and what it means to be human. What do those changes mean to you, a shift for the better or the worse?