Terms deployed in academic discourse are also commonly deployed in lay discourse. Meanings employed in the two domains obviously influence one another, and in our analytical use of terms we should be careful to recognise meanings central to lay understandings. This article elucidates some basic constraints relating to the selection ofterms. Among these constraints are discriminations reflecting both the space/time settings of social action and the paradigmatic assumptions that underpin social analysis. The argument is developed through discussion of the terms 'aggression', 'war' and 'violence'. By way of demonstration I consider two examples from anthropological discourse dealing with aggression and war where, in the choice of a term, specific paradigmatic assumptions are expressed. I go on to consider the concept of 'violence' for which, proceeding from the choice ofparadigmatic assumption, the meanings that the term can connote are laid down. Spoken words are utterances whose purpose is to denote ideas or objects. As utterances they are social actions and as social actions their meaning must be methodically discerned. It may be said, in this regard, that all communicative situations incorporate constraints to which 'enunciative acts' rationally respond (cf. Riches 1977: 131-2). The presence of such constraints is therefore embodied in a word's meaning. This being so, the meaning of a word incorporates not only reference to rather specific ideas or objects but also information about broader circumstances which are intrinsic to the discourse at hand. (The ontological standing of such 'broader circumstances' is no different from that of the 'rather specific idea or object', so it would be wrong for them to be dubbed 'context'.) But what might such broader circumstances be? Something very fundamental, I suggest, since, we are, for the moment, speaking about words in general. I will be referring in this article to two types of discourse: that of everyday lay affairs and that of professional social science. With regard to everyday lay affairs I shall presume that the 'broader circumstances' refer to aspects of the dimensions of space and time in relation to which social actions are performed. With regard to professional social science I shall presume that they refer to basic theoretical (or, better, paradigmatic) assumptions which make rigorous enquiry possible. But note that since paradigmatic assumptions themselves have space/time implications one should expect, for any given word, an essential consistency between lay and academic use. A final opening point: words are required by social scientists for labelling particular analytic distinctions. Even within interpretive social science some such distinctions can specify space/time dimensions which find no clear counterpart in lay discourse:
Read full abstract