# Definitional Power - Response By:: [[Ross Jackson]] 2025-10-14 Yes, I have encountered someone who insists on precise definitions and on highlighting whenever someone uses terms in a way the individual considers a misuse. This can occur for a variety of reasons, ranging from the innocuous to the domineering. If done privately, it can be a basis for understanding, agreement, and learning. When done publicly, it can be a basis for power, domination, and control. In baselining a discussion on definitions, it is important to note that there are no inherent definitions. All definitions are social constructions. Words are defined based on how they are used. That is it. Nothing more; nothing less. As such, definitions expand with the plasticity of use. A more generous and constructive place to start would be to note that a given word selection is atypical, and attempt to ensure that one understands the intended use, rather than claim that the use is “wrong.” Such a declaration assumes an authority nobody holds. There is no judge on the “correct meaning” of words. The dictionary provides the most common usages, not the most correct ones. Definitional dictators abound. This provides one with a unique battleground for the contestation of power. Using words creatively, playfully, and subversively is a means to resist organizational subjugation. It is how law enforcement officers became known as “pigs.” It is a highly effective form of resistance. When a person in authority publicly asserts that a given employment of a word is incorrect, they have identified more than their preferred usage; they have self-identified as a valid point of organizational resistance. Words are potentially powerful. Redefining them for the effect one desires is a point of freedom. #### Related Items [[Power]] [[Words]] [[Resistance]] [[Meaning]] [[Society]] [[Organization]]