At Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr raises an interesting point about what he calls “meaning assignment.” For years, I’ve challenged the morphing of definitions, from rape to sex, from what were once clearly defined words into vagaries that enable everyone to claim their own idiosyncratic definition. It makes communication rather difficult when we use the same words but either use our personal definition or untether them from any cogent definition. For many, vibes have replaced meaning, and even if they can’t quite offer a definition for their use of a word, they can justify their use by what they claim to be its vibe. Who can argue against a vibe?
But Orin questions the opposite direction, whether others assigning meaning to a word or phrase somehow imputes that meaning to its speaker. Forget Humpty Dumpty, and consider whether the listener is master rather than the speaker.
The Alito flags raise one recent example, but I see this as a recurring dynamic. What does “from the river to the sea” mean? What is “critical race theory”? What does “all lives matter” mean? A surprising amount of politics ends up being channeled through contested meanings of used phrases and symbols.
I’m sure there’s an academic phrase that already describes this. But in the absence of knowing it, I will call this the strange politics of meaning assignment. Here’s the idea. In a polarized political environment with little communication between the two sides, you can easily rile up your side by providing an uncharitable interpretation to the other side’s symbols or phrases. This is what that means, you announce. Now you can see the real them. Finally, they are saying the quiet part out loud. This is who they are.
While he’s certainly right that adversaries in our polarized society will impute an “uncharitable interpretation to the other side’s symbols or phrases,” is the problem that it may not reflect the speakers’ or users’ intended meaning?
Sometimes that assigned meaning is correct, and being uncharitable is just being accurate. In that case, fair enough. But, often enough to matter, meaning might be contested. A particular symbol or phrase may have different meanings to different people. A particular use may be innocuous or in a context where the meaning is uncertain. In that setting, assignment of meaning can cause a lot of trouble. It can effectively create a meaning that isn’t what those who use that symbol or phrase mean.
What was intended by Justice Alito’s wife flying the American flag upside down? Many point out that it’s a distress symbol, but that wasn’t Alito’s explanation. As for the Heaven flag, many point out that it’s a historical flag that goes back to the revolution. But Alito never said that. At the same time, Alito knew that it was improper, not to mention stupid, to invite questions as to his engaging in politics that would be viewed as compromising his impartiality. Does the meaning matter? Does ascribing meaning to the flags change the fact that a Supreme Court justice should hold himself above the political fray? And when his spouse’s conduct is indistinguishable from his, say with a flagpole at their mutual home, should his spouse find a different way to express her views that won’t taint her husband, the justice?
As for Orin’s other example, the phrase “from the river to the sea,” it had a definitive meaning long before it was heard on American college campuses. Granted, many of the chanters might be unaware of its meaning, just as they’re unaware of what river and what sea it’s talking about, and they’re just being part of the tribe by regurgitating the sounds the rest of their friends are making. But do they get to claim some other meaning, as Rashida Tlaib claimed it was a chant of peace?
From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate. My work and advocacy is always centered in justice and dignity for all people no matter faith or ethnicity.
Do we each get to reinvent the meaning of whatever we say or do, or are there meanings and definitions that people should be held to if they choose to use a symbol or phrase? And if people are unaware of them when they use the symbol or phrase, does that absolve them of responsibility for doing so without first taking responsibility for their actions?
To Orin’s point, it’s no different if meaning is assigned by others to a person’s use of a phrase or symbol, whether charitably or otherwise. In some instances, there are legitimate questions as to what is meant when a phrase of symbol is used. But most of the time, there is a definition to be had and efforts to spin it into some benign, if not positive, meaning are nonsense. And then there are instances where a disputed meaning doesn’t matter and the very fact that a question is raised reflects the impropriety of its use.