Last updated on June 19, 2013
A long-time friend and colleague writes (in French, so my own loose translation follows):
Hey,
I was thinking about your post on rationality, a concept whose [economic] definition differs from its popular definition.
Other examples: “structural,” “public good,” or “efficiency.” In the limit, “profit” and “rent.”
Is it the layperson’s job to learn accurate definitions, or the economist’s job to be more precise about their vocabulary?
I think it’s our job to define the terms we use when we engage in public debates, for two reasons. First, because I believe the onus is always on the writer to be understood by his readers. That belief of mine probably stems from studying philosophy in college in a French-speaking university, and from the allergic reaction I got from being exposed to some of the most willingly obfuscating writing ever published (see Derrida, Jacques; or don’t.)
Second, if we ourselves define the terms we use when we engage in public debates, we are setting up the rules of the game, and so any misunderstanding is not our fault (provided of course that the first rule above has been followed).
Moreover, if you believe in markets, decentralized mechanisms, and the use of knowledge in society, you pretty much necessarily have to accept that languages are not monolithic, and that they evolve organically.
This means that even if a word started out with a specific meaning, what matters is common usage. Another allergic reaction of mine: I come from a place where there is actually a language police that goes around making sure French dominates on signs and in the workplace, and my maternal language is supposedly governed by an academy that decides what words do and do not mean. I thus believe that attempts at changing the course of the evolution of a language are analogous to the dikes that were built in New Orleans: they can hold the water off for some time, but in the long run, Nature will have its way.
As for those purists who would like French to be governed by a centralized body like the Académie française, or who would like to have “cultural exceptions” to trade agreements, perhaps they should read Weber’s Peasants into Frenchmen, and realize that French as we (they?) know it did not exist 150 years ago. Rather, back in the 1860s, the French spoke a host of local languages, much like the Italians spoke a host of dialects before the widespread adoption of television. A culture that needs to be protected by laws in order to survive is a culture that is, slowly but surely, dying.
On “Rationality,” Other Misinterpreted Words, and Cultural Exceptions
Last updated on June 19, 2013
A long-time friend and colleague writes (in French, so my own loose translation follows):
I think it’s our job to define the terms we use when we engage in public debates, for two reasons. First, because I believe the onus is always on the writer to be understood by his readers. That belief of mine probably stems from studying philosophy in college in a French-speaking university, and from the allergic reaction I got from being exposed to some of the most willingly obfuscating writing ever published (see Derrida, Jacques; or don’t.)
Second, if we ourselves define the terms we use when we engage in public debates, we are setting up the rules of the game, and so any misunderstanding is not our fault (provided of course that the first rule above has been followed).
Moreover, if you believe in markets, decentralized mechanisms, and the use of knowledge in society, you pretty much necessarily have to accept that languages are not monolithic, and that they evolve organically.
This means that even if a word started out with a specific meaning, what matters is common usage. Another allergic reaction of mine: I come from a place where there is actually a language police that goes around making sure French dominates on signs and in the workplace, and my maternal language is supposedly governed by an academy that decides what words do and do not mean. I thus believe that attempts at changing the course of the evolution of a language are analogous to the dikes that were built in New Orleans: they can hold the water off for some time, but in the long run, Nature will have its way.
As for those purists who would like French to be governed by a centralized body like the Académie française, or who would like to have “cultural exceptions” to trade agreements, perhaps they should read Weber’s Peasants into Frenchmen, and realize that French as we (they?) know it did not exist 150 years ago. Rather, back in the 1860s, the French spoke a host of local languages, much like the Italians spoke a host of dialects before the widespread adoption of television. A culture that needs to be protected by laws in order to survive is a culture that is, slowly but surely, dying.
Share this:
Published in Commentary, Culture, Economics, Miscellaneous, Social Sciences and Writing