The first of these is the danger which arises when a word in general use takes on a special, almost technical meaning in connection with a particular subject. Here you must take some pains to see that your readers understand it in the special sense, and not in the popular one. A crass instance, in which there is little real possibility of confusion, is the use of words like "democratic" or "republican" as the names of political parties; even with these words stump speakers sometimes try to play on the feelings of an uneducated audience by importing the association of the original use of the word into its later use. There are a good many words used in the scientific study of government which are also used loosely in general talk. "Federal" has a precise meaning when used to distinguish the form of government of the United States from that which usually binds together the counties in a state; but we constantly use it in a sense hardly distinguishable from that of "National." The following extract from an editorial on the Philippine question is a good illustration of this precise and semitechnical use of words, and the loose, not very accurate use of everyday speech:
On the other hand, it is said that this policy of the United States toward its dependencies is insincere; that it is a covert plan of exploitation; that, as it is practiced, it is a denial in act of a mere promise to the ear; and that if it were genuine the United States would bestow self-government upon its dependencies by granting independence.
This criticism is obviously based on a confusion of independence with self-government. Russia, is independent, but in only a very slight degree are its people self-governing. Turkey has long been independent, but until the recent revolution the people of Turkey were self-governing in no sense at all. On the other hand, Canada, though not independent, is self-governing.[13][!--Note--]
Many an argument goes to wreck through carelessness in the use of words of this sort. Wherever the subject under discussion has grown into the partial possession of a special field, but still uses words drawn from everyday life, you must be careful that not only you, but your audience also, understand your terms in the more precise way.
Closely related to this kind of ambiguity, and in practice still more insidious, is the ambiguity which arises from the connotation or emotional implications of words. The use of "republican" and "democrat" cited above runs over into this kind of confusion. In collegiate athletics "professional" has come to have almost an implication of moral inferiority, when it is often dependent on pretty technical considerations of expediency. In politics, to one class of temperaments "conservative," to another "radical," or at any rate "liberal" or "progressive," carries the implication of the salvation or the ruin of the country. All such words introduce a sure element of obscurity and confusion into an argument. If a word stirs your feelings in one way and those of some of your readers in another, you cannot use that word safely; in spite of the most careful definitions and disclaimers the emotional bias will creep in and twist the effect of your words in the minds of some of your audience. This emotional ambiguity is the most insidious of all ambiguities in the use of words. The danger from it is so real that I shall return to it at greater length (see p. 158).
In a good many cases the necessity of defining the terms to be used, whether in the proposition itself, or in the argument, changes with the audience. If you begin a movement to introduce a commission form of government into the town or the city in which you live, at first you will have to repeat the definition of commission government a good many times, in order that most of the voters may know exactly what you want them to do. If the town once wakes up, however, and gets interested, you and every one else will be using such technicalities as "Galveston plan," "Des Moines plan," "recall," "initiative," and the like with no danger of leaving darkness where there should be light.
So even more obviously with school and college questions: if you are sending memorials urging the introduction of the honor system or of student self-government, one to the trustees of your college, and another to the faculty, and at the same time addressing an appeal to your fellow students through a college paper, in each of the three cases your definitions might differ. You could probably assume that both students and faculty would be more or less familiar with the question, so that your definitions would be of the nature of precise specifications of the plan you were urging. With the trustees your definitions would probably have to be longer and your explanations more detailed, for such a body would start with only a vague knowledge of the situation.
As in all other steps in making an argument, so in defining, there is no formula for all cases. In each case your knowledge of your audience must guide you, and your own sagacity. Unnecessary definitions will make them think you a prig; insufficient definition will let them stray away from your meaning.
Notebook. Enter any terms which need definition for the audience you are addressing.
Illustration. Commission form of government after the Des Mouses plan. The essential features of this plan are as follows: The entire affairs of the city are conducted by a mayor and four councilors, elected at large for two years; they are nominated at a primary election; at neither primary nor final election are party designations allowed on the ballot; these officers are subject to the recall; the mayor is chairman of the council, but has no power of veto; the executive and administrative powers are divided into five departments, each under the charge of a member of the council—(1) public affairs (under the charge of the mayor), (2) accounts and finances, (3)public safety,(4) streets and public improvements, (5) parks and public property; all other offices are filled and their duties prescribed by majority vote of the council; recall; grants of franchises must be approved by popular vote; initiative and referendum; a summary of city affairs must be published and distributed once a month.