Replying to LO26229 --
Richard Karash <rkarash@karash.com> wrote:
> Peter Senge in his talks a couple of years ago made a point on this that I
> found very thought provoking.
>
> He said, more or less, "You're not empowered if someone can take that away
> from you. You don't have freedom if someone can take that away from you.
> Therefore, it's a bit mistaken to think of empowerment or freedom as
> something that comes from an act by another person... If it comes from
> another person, they can change their mind and take it away. It's they who
> are empowered, not you. Real freedom can't come from someone's act, it can
> only come from an idea. Our Declaration of Independence begins, 'We hold
> these truths to be self-evident.'"
Peggy, I told you we'd come back to the definition! :-)
Rick,
After I wrote that, I looked up "empower" in my American Heritage
dictionary (those with bigger dictionaries, especially the OED, are
welcome to add to this). It says the word means "1. To invest with
legal power; authorize. 2. To enable or permit."
I'm not really a strict proscriptive grammarian, although my junior high
school English teacher would prefer that, but I think we need to
understand when we're inventing new words or new definitions for old
words. And I think that's why empowerment may be a tad confusing--we
tend to mean one thing, as Senge notes above, and the "definition" is
something else.
I once heard a computer scientist remark that physicists had done it
better than they had. When physicists need a word to describe a new
concept, they tend to make up a new word, often from Greek or Latin
origins. When computer scientists (and lo-ites) need a word to describe
a new concept, we appropriate one that's lying around that sounds about
right, forever confusing others with its mixed old and new denotations
and connotations.
So, is there an existing and perhaps plainer word that means what you
and Senge mean when you use "empowerment"? If so, are we better off
using it in the interest of clarity (something that should be near and
dear to LO's, IMHO)? Or do we give up and lobby the American Heritage
folk to add a third definition?
Regards,
Bill
PS: In the spirit of open disclosure, I checked my son's Merriam
Webster, and it has as a third definition "to promote the
self-actualization or influence of." While that makes the dictionary
and Senge consistent, it still allows for confusion, as the 2 more
primary and traditional definitons mean something else.
--Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.