The Public Construction of Meaning

David Weinberger observes: "...the public construction of meaning is the most important project of the next hundred years."*

Simply put, to humankind has been given the task of drawing distinctions in the world around us. Distinctions permit us to organize and categorize what we see, and with further distinctions we determine significance and meaning.

I would take Weinberger's assertion even further. I believe that the public construction of meaning, the distinctions we draw and the meaning we assign to those distinctions, has always and will always be the most important project assigned to humankind. Beginning with the first task given to Adam in the creation story, until the last breath drawn by a living human being, mankind has always and will always be about the business of drawing distinctions.

The delicate process of naming often captures this entire process. In the creative act of naming we select a slice from the world around us and draw distinctions on every side, separating it from every other thing not like it. And in determining that name it is quite common to assign a measure of significance in terms of what a thing means to us; from a loved one's pet name, to the names we assign to our firstborn child.

One man believes we should draw a legal distinction on the basis of race, but not sex. Another draws the distinction at sex, but leaves the category of race undefined and undistinguished. On the basis of prevailing wisdom, how can one say which of the two is right? More to the point, how can one draw a distinction that declares one to be wrong?

In the private sphere, perhaps such mutually exclusive distinctions can coexist peaceably. But the public sphere, where Weinberger focuses his attention, affords us no such privilege. The public sphere, if it were to remain neutral in this, must immediately refuse to draw distinctions of any kind. Yet this is not what we observe taking place in the halls of government today, and the world would function no better tomorrow if governments eradicated law, which -- by definition -- serves no effect if not to distinguish legal conduct from illegal conduct on the part of the citizenry.

We draw distinctions and give names, both to those we agree with and those we do not. To the one who draws distinction on the basis of race, in a situation in which we do not, we give the name “racist.” To the one who draws distinction on the basis of sex, in a situation we do not, we give the name “sexist.”

Is the one who gives significance to divisions of race superior to the one who gives significance to divisions of sex? Can decisions informed by some genetic features take the place of decisions informed by other genetic features?

Inevitably, distinctions reflect the way we see the world and the facets of it on which we focus our attention. At risk of being named an essentialist I choose to give greater meaning and significance to some genetic features, particularly those I do not see. But do we not all do the same in the distinction we draw between which human features to cover and which to leave open to the naked eye? It seems a powerful waste of disposable income if we could simply get away with covering the top of one’s head and forgo the expense of additional clothing.

The eyes are trained by what they see, and discernment is trained by the distinctions we choose to practice. Inevitably the distinctions we draw will reflect our personal values. I find therefore that the most important project of humankind is nothing more, or less, than preferring the highest values and putting that preference into action every day of our lives.

But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Hebrews 5)



* David Weinberger, "Everything is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder", Holt Press -2007, p. 222.