Part 1: Defining define
According to various sources on the internet (which I will cite accordingly in a moment), the word define is one of those words that does not currently mean the same thing as it did in Middle English.
Based on a quick search on Google (just search “define”), you’ll get the standard meaning of define as we use it today, namely:
- state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of [smthg].
We will come back to these in a moment.
If you click on the little “expand” arrow of this definition box, you’ll also see an etymology chart (Figure A):
Figure A: Etymology of “Define”
I compared this to info I found on Etymonline for define.
The word comes from the latin prefix de- (“completely”) and verb finire (“to finish”), though finire was also understood as (“to bind”, “to limit”), and perhaps more forcibly, (“to terminate”). This comes from latin noun finis (“boundary”, “end”).
As such, it would not be difficult to derive “to completely bind” or “to completely limit” from these roots. “Boundary” and “end” also become important later in my analysis.
The Oxford English Dictionary says that in the from the 13th-17th century, define once meant:
- to bring to an end; A more ready way to define controversies.
but between the 16th -17th Century, emerged:
- to set bounds to, to limit, restrict, confine; God is…so present in all places, as he is neither limited, nor defined by any place.
Clearly both of these can be seen to have derived from the original latin roots, but the latter is the one that persisted (in some iteration, though remnants of it are more salient in the contemporary definition given by Google).
I think the problem lies not in the etymology of define, nor in the definition of define, but rather how this term is applied to people given its etymology and definition.
Part 2: Is defining the Individual possible?
Individual is purposely capitalized because I don’t mean, is defining <the individual> possible? – rather, I mean is it possible to:
- state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of [SOMEONE, AN INDIVIDUAL, A PERSON, A BEING].
Perhaps I’m jumping a little ahead of myself because I know what’s coming up in the syllabus, but my argument here is that to socially define an Individual is necessarily to deny them their humanity, and to strip an Individual down to some sort of law of nature or other (in other words, I personally believe it is impossible).
Of course, some definitions, based in biology for example, are given. X is a homo sapien, X is composed of about 70% water, X is currently positioned on the planet Earth, etc. These usually don’t come with other implications.
But other definitions, such as X is a problem, lives off food stamps, is a lesser human being than Y (etc.), necessarily set a sort of social category (boundary) for the person being defined. Philosophically, existentially, these boundaries, restrictions, limitations – whatever you want to call them – impose upon our free will. When we are placed into social categories, our movement/existence as free agents is stifled – we lack the power to be and become, and are instead limited to what has been put in place for us. The reason why this is, is that social categories are socially rigid – there is not a lot of room for crossover.
And even if social categories aren’t socially rigid, it them becomes a matter on whether the government (or other institutions) recognizes such categories and crossovers.
As we have seen with the etymology of define, what is implied is a “complete binding” of something/someone to their “exact nature” or “meaning”. Yet this seems like an impossible task – what does it mean to be defined as “an American”?
Clearly not a geographical position – Native people are not seen as “American” (as mentioned in the Devos & Mohamed article) though they were there prior to any European colonization occurred. There are also Americans who live overseas for years at a time, or live the majority of their lives outside of America but still feel an attachment to that country because they were born there.
But it also isn’t necessarily a citizenship title – there are many people who come to America as children, who feel American because they grew up there, and who may even have citizenship, but are not seen as American because they do not meet the criteria of X, Y, and Z (whatever they may be; some might be denied a citizenship regardless).
This leaves out a very large number of people out of the definition of American. So who is American? Dylann Roof seems to argue that the real Americans are the non-Jewish, white European migrants who actively fight for racial purification, but this definition isn’t rooted in geography or citizenship (which have been vehemently argued for contemporarily). If we try to flesh out a definition of what it means to be “American” we seem to come to great inconsistencies if the definition isn’t fluid and inclusive (though, as mentioned above, geographical location and citizenship are murky boundaries on their own – can we even solve this?).
In a sense, the current political atmosphere and discourse in America is trying to do just what I’ve tried to do in 3 paragraphs: define American. But to carry out the act of defining – to restrict who gets to be American, who is seen as American – is necessarily harmful for those who get to be American, and those who do not.
I think it’s obvious why it would be harmful for those who do not. But for those who do, being defined as American (especially now, more than ever, as this definition becomes obscured by those in power) is harmful in the same ways: it limits you, it prescribes a certain set of rules of being, it gives you a criteria to follow in order to be legally and socially seen as an American. And ironically, it might be easier to be an American legally than it is to be American socially. As humans – free agents with a free will – it is necessarily the case that we cannot operate under a set of criteria as it limits (terminates?) potential for personal development. We are either Individuals, or we are sheep (as Nietzsche might say).
Consider this: You grow up being the “ideal American”. One day, you decide you don’t really agree with the second amendment. When others find out about this, they disparage you for being “un-American”. Are you still an American if one of the criteria of being American is agreeing with the second amendment?
I really like how you tied in your knowledge of linguistics and the etymology of the word “define” to help guide the conversation in the second part, where you talked about definitions in a philosophical context. You bring up some very interesting points that I would not have thought about, particularly that the defining process does not allow us free will, and that we are tied to these definitions that society makes of people. Also, the defining process of what makes something American is extremely complex. I like how the last question you ask is one that provokes something to think about. It really makes one think about what being American really means, and whether or not disagreeing with an aspect that is stereotypically “American” suddenly makes you “un-American”.
I thoroughly enjoyed the connections you drew in the first half of the comment to the second. What I first thought to be random in defining definitions turned out to be intelligently connected to what it means to be American. Really a great use of your linguistics background in the first half! I loved the etymology and the little diagrams and all. I would also agree that it may be socially harder to be American than it is legally, as I feel a passport is no longer enough to prove your “Americaness” to some. The last question is interesting as it poses the question of how do you become un-American? Is it by disagreeing with the law in your state? Maybe you don’t share the all the American values. Defining American in itself is hard to do.