Who Gets To Decide What Words Mean?

"Who of all these has established the right signification of the word, gold?" --Locke (821).

Throughout John Locke's piece "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding" I was struck again with how inseparable rhetoric is from authority. In examining the relationship between words and the world it is impossible not to ask the questions: who's world, and who's words? The nature of reality is called into question when he states, "the ideas they stand for have no connection in nature; and so no settled standard anywhere in nature existing" (818). When we use words such as unicorn or God there is a perception of what the words mean based on cultural images that have been painted or spoken about, or we connect them to abstract feelings and thoughts. As the philosopher Anselm argues in his Ontological Argument because we can conceive of what a god or a unicorn might look like it comes into existence.

The relationship between words and the world complicates the ways in which we practice rhetoric, as it is important to both manipulate and persuade the interlocutor through the shared manipulation of reality.   Part of the rhetors job with language is utilize "the difference of ideas they stand for" (817). This is why John Locke requires three prerequisites of rhetoricians, "First , to make known one man's thoughts or ideas to another; Secondly, to do it with as much ease and quickness as possible; and, Thirdly, thereby to convey the knowledge of things" (825). What happened to the "good man"? I think a lot can be said about the time and culture Locke is writing in because he is emphasizing the importance of speed, mediation, and regurgitation of knowledge. If the audience got through all of these three steps it would be a lot easier to understand what words mean. Is Locke therefore establishing that rhetoricians must connect words with the world? That places a lot of control and authority with a rhetor who is formulating this reality.