Can meaning be fixed?

Meaning plays a crucial role in human cognition and communication, acting as a bridge between the human mind and the external world. The question of whether meaning can be fixed or remains subject to change has been a topic of contemplation for theologians, thinkers, philosophers and linguists throughout history. Some proponents argue for an objective view of meaning, positing that it exists independently of contexts or interpretations.

Theologians, for instance, suggest that divine revelations hold ultimate meaning, providing structured frameworks for understanding the world. Similarly, in scientific inquiry, adherents propose empirical, rational and observational methods as a means of uncovering unchanging meanings about the universe. Meanwhile, some linguists contend that strict adherence to grammatical rules produces consistent meanings. However, these arguments about meaning suffer from flaws and are self-defeating. For instance, the varying and often conflicting theological accounts of defining the world testify to the diversity of meaning.

Similarly, contextual and linguistic variations make grammatical rules too simplistic a tool to afford fixed meanings or contexts for stable communication. And though the physical sciences might ascribe relatively unchanging meanings to the things around us, the same is unlikely to withstand the test of intellectual growth and discoveries. The dominant view in the fixed-fluid debate regards meaning as a dynamic, fluid and subjective construct.

According to this perspective, the environment lacks inherent interpretations, and it is the responsibility of humans to assign meaning, interpreting the world based on their dynamic, evolving and contextual perceptions. Meaning, in this sense, is a product of social construction, dynamic interpretation and ongoing human discourse. What it is that makes meaning subjective, fluid and arbitrary? First, nature and the things around us lack intrinsic connotations. Had it been otherwise, things could have relatively fixed meanings.

Now that they are short of inherent meanings, it’s humans who assign them one through supposed representation. For instance, a person named Sameer could be named Zameer without changing the person. So is the case with most of the things around us. Second, linguistic variations accord meaning its dynamism. As the key to creating and communicating meanings, language influences our description of things. For instance, linguistic relativity, or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, suggests that the language we speak constructs our perception and meanings.

As different languages categorise and conceptualise reality differently, a variation, no matter how slight, in interpreting things is hardly unpredictable. Moreover, concepts associated with symbols and words evolve with context and the evolution of language over time, reinforcing meaning as a dynamic phenomenon. Third, the differences in perception among human beings make meaning a subjective notion. Depending on socialisation, personal likings and prejudices, every one of us perceives things differently.

For instance, the word ‘house’ might invoke different emotions in a homeless person and one who owns a home. Similarly, life means differently to different people based on their experiences. Fourth, varying cultures and their unique cultural elements make meaning contextual. Different cultures address different things through their unique lens. For instance, notions of good and evil vary based on varying cultural and historical accounts. The varying legal, theological and material practices in different cultures testify to the contextual and subjective nature of meaning. Last but not least, contested academic theses or the multiplicity of theories about things attest to this.

There is hardly a unanimous and agreed-upon meaning of a thing, even within a single academic discipline. It is because, though each thesis might address a particular aspect, no single universally fixed lens exists that could holistically address things. Dynamics of meaning influences reality more than the other way around. Therefore, embracing the fluidity of meaning allows us to better understand the intricate web of human communication and interpretation, appreciating the richness of our shared human experience.