Thought, Language and Jargon

Like most people I am suspicious when I see jargon, and do not want to engage with it. From the outside it seems that it is unnecessary, and can be 'translated' into ordinary and less complicated language. It is not that simple.

Most subject areas have their own particular language - this is what we mean by the term 'jargon'. It is not always accessible to 'outsiders', and we see this very clearly with convoluted legal discourse. The latter is necessary where it is an attempt to fully, rigorously and unambiguously define positions of legal conflict. It is unnecessary when it becomes a habitual form of discourse, where simpler expression is possible. Sometimes, for political reasons, language can be and is used to confuse rather than communicate.

In the last few decades new forms of enquiry have appeared, characterised by their attempt to arrive at holistic and synthetic understanding. Consider the word 'synthetic'. The OID defines it as "produced by synthesis, artificial". It is generally used to mean the latter, to describe something that is not 'natural'. But the synthetic plastic, imitation leather etc. has been created by a process of synthesis, i.e. is the outcome of a manufacturing process that creates a new substance from a variety of raw materials. 'Synthetic' often has a derogatory meaning, but refers to a creative blending of disparate parts. We thus see how misunderstanding can arise, because language is not a fixed code but a fluid and multi-faceted referential technique.

Examples of holistic and synthetic understanding are:

· Systems theory
· Alternative medicines
· Ecological theory

These methodologies rest on a philosophical outlook that recognises the interconnected quality of different phenomena. The holistic outlook seeks to address the 'big picture', and how it works. It focuses on relationship rather than detail. It may be harmonious or conflict based, but always, as with a marriage, recognising the constituent parts and their overall sum.

A marriage between two people requires that they can communicate. Communication refers to expressing what you mean accurately, and comprehending what the other person is saying too. Common understanding across a wide range of disciplines requires a universal i.e. generally applicable language. The term sometimes used for this is 'meta language'. It is an elegant and concise way of referring to a wider concept. In some circumstances, 'jargon' is a necessary distillation of thought which enables us to reference and exchange conceptual understanding. Language is a tool, which reflects and defines thought; it can also refine thought, where vocabulary becomes conceptual acquisition. That is, new terminology can give us new ways of understanding.

Is it possible to 'know' or understand something if we can name it or talk about it? And if so, in what sense? In the traditional education system based on rote learning and examination testing, understanding is assumed if a student can refer to the appropriate concerns, in a pressured situation. Underlying this is a teaching and learning philosophy that is no longer universal - although it still exists.

Philosophically, we can ask if understanding is equivalent to linguistic reference. Some philosophers argue that the reverse is true: that language is a symbolic code standing between the person and the 'thing itself'. This approach is more usually found and probably more fully explicated in the East. In Taoist philosophy, we are told "the Tao that can be told is not the real Tao". In Zen philosophy, we are reminded - metaphorically - that the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon itself.

How we say something can be just as important as what we say. In verbal discourse, this includes the subtleties of rhythm and inflexion. In written discourse, it is a matter of terminology and vocabulary.