As a consequence, participants often do not appear to realise that they are talking or writing about quite different ideas / concepts. They (as encoders) assume the meanings they ascribe to words are shared by others (as decoders). In effect there are shared word forms and little shared meanings which are the product of their interpretation. Hence, when the different word-meaning relationships are not made explicit, there is “miscommunication” which can lead to misunderstanding, inconsistency and contradiction. In addition to disagreements, the miscommunication can result in a false sense of agreement/alignment (creating false hopes), or unnecessary disagreements (when people think they are talking about different ideas that are in fact the same).

This general observation was made many times during the research. Throughout the conduct of the research, many examples of the inconsistency in use of language were observed. In the processes of communication, Social Economy members used “common words”, that is, words accepted into the vernacular of the Social Economy (irrespective of its diversity and complexity), to describe what is/was assumed to be a fair symbolic representation of the concepts under discussion . The result was a mix of uses of concepts which in the views of many respondents meant many things. How does this come about? The issue is complex and requires far greater analysis and conceptualisation than is possible here. But from the data it may be possible to suggest a simple process.

Participants were wedded to certain ideas that represent an issue or concern to them. Clearly, funding is one of these ideas; so too, are alliances, partnerships, and capacity building. (As a side issue many of these ideas of great concern are instigated by those outside the sector, for example, by business or Government). When these ideas are used in local contexts there is a tendency for members to mask these ideas with their own new meanings. We take the concept of alliance as an example.

The concept “alliance” also has multiple meanings for participants. It may be conceived as short-term partnerships, as long-term integration of interests between a for-profit corporate and a Social Economy organisation, and these interests may be political as well as financial , and other meanings. Hence, when one member from an organisation speaks to another, his/her use of the term alliance may have a strong political (read “personal”) calculation underlying the meaning of the word. In another instance, especially in a conversation between the same organisations to a smaller sized organisation in the Social Economy the understandings of these meanings ascribed by each to the concepts are quite different.

The greatest achievement of politically-minded organisations, and in particular the larger more resourced and powerful corporate charities (the data suggest that leaders and managers of smaller organisations thought in these terms) is their capacity to appeal to the concept of alliance and the language of alliance-building while masking a real agenda. They mask this agenda which is inaccessible to others, by instrumentalising (using it as an instrument) the concept of alliance to achieve their own political and personal purposes. This is a far cry from the understandings of others in the sector, and it may be the bases for misunderstandings that seem to plague the sector at this time. There is a certain politic in language production.

The issue of “language” and “meaning” is therefore critical to the study and infuses every response/statement made by participants. It is an issue of central importance if the sector is to change.

In summary, language used in communication within the sector and across sectors is causing confusion and misunderstanding. It is even more confounding perhaps that what we describe briefly in the above section. Hence, the following kinds of situations may occur:
1.    Common i.e. the same words are used to describe quite different concepts (Concepts and ideas that over time acquire several words to communicate their meaning)
2.    Several words with different meanings acquire a similar or same (or apparently same) meaning. Over time several meanings associated with several words “collapse” into one meaning. No distinction is then made between words i.e. investment and funding
3.    The same concept might be described using very different words / language.

If multiple meanings are associated with each word-concept and these word-concepts make up the language of the sector, how is it possible to begin to communicate within the sector, let alone across sectors? 

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)