Bureaucracies, by their nature, need to make precisely deliniated distinctions and they need to distill those distinctions down to sinlge words (for use in reports, questionaires, statistics and so on). Where existing usage does not support exactly the distinction they need they simply assign the denotation they need to an existing word (effectively re-defining it or at least imposing artifical precision on a word that cared some natuural ambiguity).
To chose an example that came up in the public conversation in the US following Hurricane Katrina, the UN defines "refugee" more closely that most dictionaries because they need to distinguish people diplaced over national border from those who are seeking refuge inside the country where their legal situation is well established. This insistance that the word only applies to those whove crossed national borders is stronger than the original organic use of the word.
This last week we learned that the US National Parks Service defines "tear gas" to exclude pepper bombs. I'm not sure what (if any) purpose is served by this distinction, but it certainly isn't one in general use. It's purely a bureaucratic denotation.
As I indicaed above, I understand that such distinctions may serve a purpose for the agency that makes them, but I feel quite strongly that there is no obligation for actual flesh and blood humans to give a damn. Real people should use words with their real meanings and should feel free to laugh at any jobsworth1 who sugggests that their organization's internal usage is more correct than the general population's.
1 A word I'd forgotten about until I saw it in a opinion peice from a British paper this week.
No comments:
Post a Comment