Meaningless

[lillibet]

While reading this Slate article I was struck by the author writing "Empowerment is a meaningless word."

I feel as though I've seen that phrase a lot recently. Privilege is a meaningless word. Consciousness is a meaningless word. Spirituality is a meaningless word. I searched on the string "is a meaningless word" and got some interesting hits. Go ahead, enjoy, I'll be here when you get back.

I'm beginning to think that perhaps "is a meaningless word" might be a signifier that the author doesn't have a real understanding of the word. Perhaps this is because of their position--they may be too close to the subject for it to make sense any more, or too far away to bring it into focus. It may be because of their socioeconomic status--I think it's harder to see things like "privilege" and "empowerment" when you're soaking in it. And there are words that mean so many things--like "love" and "art" and "good"--that it may be important to question their meanings in particular contexts.

But when people start denigrating words as meaningless, it's starting to make me wonder if the rest of what they are saying has any value, either.

Comments

[ayelle.livejournal.com]

Agreed!

[trowa-barton.livejournal.com]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "

[gingicat]

Well said.

I also think that "a meaningless word" can be shorthand for "that word has been used in so many incorrect or inappropriate contexts for so long that it has lost its meaning."

[firstfrost.livejournal.com]

I often also think that "X is a meaningless word" is not really strictly grammatically what they mean - that is, they don't mean "using this in a sentence conveys no meaning" in a way that "squornglick is a meaningless word" might. I think it sometimes means "I don't think that X is as important as I think you think it is" and that sort of opinion is subject to error both in how important X is and how important I think X is to you. Because sometimes it seems to mean "You talk about X enough that I assume you think it is the single solution to everything, because I am oversimplifying your position, so when I declare that X is meaningless, I refute you completely!"

I may be getting extra cynical here. :)

[amenirdis.livejournal.com]

I think it means that when words get used so much they're watered down they lose their original meaning. When using a certain product is "empowering" or wearing your hair a certain way is "empowering" or taking a long walk before breakfast is "empowering" then the word gets cheapened. It just means a generic kind of feel good. It's watered down until it doesn't matter. Sadly I think this happens all the time. We apply a word to more and more trivial things until it becomes meaningless.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

Potentially. But I think there are better ways of expressing that idea. And for "empowerment" to have lost its meaning in the context of bullying seems weird and wrong to me.

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

Sure, but to say that "empowerment" is a meaningless word in the context of bullying seems very strange to me. Figuring out how to help victims of bullying to recognize and wield their own power in bullying situations has got to be part of an effective anti-bullying campaign, surely.

[gingicat]

No disagreement. More of a thinking about whether I had heard the term used in a positive (is that even the right word to use?) connotation. Or in the connotation of "use it for what it means!"

I think that train of thought may be related to this passage from Anne of the Island by L.M. Montgomery:

"We—we—saw by your sign that this house is to let," said Anne
faintly, addressing the older lady, who was evidently Miss Patty
Spofford.
"Oh, yes," said Miss Patty. "I intended to take that sign down today."
"Then—then we are too late," said Anne sorrowfully. "You've let it to
some one else?"
"No, but we have decided not to let it at all."
"Oh, I'm so sorry," exclaimed Anne impulsively. "I love this place so. I
did hope we could have got it."
Then did Miss Patty lay down her knitting, take off her specs, rub
them, put them on again, and for the first time look at Anne as at a human
being. The other lady followed her example so perfectly that she
might as well have been a reflection in a mirror.
"You LOVE it," said Miss Patty with emphasis. "Does that mean that
you really LOVE it? Or that you merely like the looks of it? The girls
nowadays indulge in such exaggerated statements that one never can tell
what they DO mean. It wasn't so in my young days. THEN a girl did not
say she LOVED turnips, in just the same tone as she might have said she
loved her mother or her Savior."
Anne's conscience bore her up.
"I really do love it," she said gently. "I've loved it ever since I saw it last
fall. My two college chums and I want to keep house next year instead of
boarding, so we are looking for a little place to rent; and when I saw that
this house was to let I was so happy."
"If you love it, you can have it," said Miss Patty. "Maria and I decided
today that we would not let it after all, because we did not like any of the
people who have wanted it. We don't HAVE to let it. We can afford to go
to Europe even if we don't let it. It would help us out, but not for gold
will I let my home pass into the possession of such people as have come
here and looked at it. YOU are different. I believe you do love it and will
be good to it. You can have it."

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

Do you know, that's a passage I think of often!

[fanw.livejournal.com]

First thought: "Inconceivable!" "I do not think that means what you think it means!"

I agree that phrasing is incredibly dismissive. Just because someone feels it has no value doesn't mean it doesn't have value in another context.

[desiringsubject.livejournal.com]

I remember thinking that perhaps Miss Patty underestimated her past interlocutor's affection for turnips! But then again, we never did find out if they minded the pinholes in the wallpaper...

[desiringsubject.livejournal.com]

I agree with all the people who have said that people use that phrase as a stand-in for something else--often that it is too watered down or too often misapplied, sure, but not always.

I also thing (and pardon me while I geek out here) that it is a way to undervalue language itself, specifically rhetoric. I think when people say "x is a meaningless word" they are often implying that words themselves are meaningless, and that ACTION is what's important. Or, in Sausurrean terms, that the signifier is unimportant in the face of the solidity of the signified. We shouldn't "say" empowerment; we should EMPOWER. La. Fine. But the problem is that these people grossly undervalue the significance of rhetoric! That the stories we tell about the facts shape the facts as much as the facts did. That the facts hardly pre-exist the stories about them! Which is why most poststructuralist analysis of Sausurre's distinction between the signifier and the signified suggest that the signified has practically no (or actually no, depending on whom you ask) existence that could be said to be prior to or independent of the signifier. Thus, a member of the poststructuralist orthodoxy would have to reply to the empowerment person: "No, empowerment is a meaningless CONCEPT--the word, however, is of utmost importance."

(And then, of course, get smacked for being just as unhelpful and pretentious as the first person!!)

[lillibet.livejournal.com]

That's marvelous, thank you!