Description 

What are definitions?

Some philosophers say that definitions are all there is to philosophy. For some philosophical questions, the definitions are the starting point of the discussion. For other philosophical questions, definitions are the end point of the discussion. Definitions are relevant for all questions, which is why it is important to know more about what definitions are (the definition of ‘definitions’, if you will) and how they can be applied to (philosophical) issues. In this chapter, we will first have a look at what definitions are in a general sense. Then we will apply this knowledge to the topic of migration.

First, we will have a look at what kind of definitions there are. I have chosen three kinds of definitions to elaborate on in this chapter. These come from an entry on definitions by Anil Gupta in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2023) and shared notes by Norman Swartz Definitions, Dictionaries, and Meanings (2010).  I chose those which I think will be most suited for applying to the topic of migration in this book.

The first kind of definition is the lexical or dictionary definition. This is, as the name suggests, the definition as it is found in a dictionary. Usually, this is a brief description of a word, where there is just sufficient information to come to an understanding of the term. This kind of definition is not often used within philosophy.

The second kind is the explicative definition. This is an improved version of another definition, sometimes for a specific context. This is often used within philosophical debate, where the improved definition aims to be the answer to the question.

The third and last kind I will mention is the persuasive definition. Persuasive definitions are, at least partly, made up, and often not in line with the lexical definition. They are often used as arguments in discussions. A worry might be that it can easily be used to commit fallacies, since the definition is (partly) made up.

These definitions have some general points in common that I would like to mention here. These points are relevant when we want to apply the tool to a specific concept, as we will do with migration. These points are more elaborately explained by Julian Baggini and Peter Fosl in their book The Philosopher’s Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods (2002).

1. Definitions should be proper.

A proper definition is a definition that is neither too broad nor too narrow. This means that it should apply to all intended instances, and no more than that. The used definition defines the scope of the instances that the argument applies to.

2. Results of improper definitions.

Improper definitions may lead to arguing at cross-purposes or committing fallacies based on equivocation. This is not beneficial for the debate, and it highlights the importance of using proper definitions.

3. Results of proper definitions.

A proper definition, on the other hand, can help remove vagueness and ambiguity. Other goals of using proper definitions are precision, accuracy, and fairness.

4. Definitions can be context dependent.

It is best to use the definition that corresponds to the definition most used in the debate. To support or refine the debate, however, it might be good to adjust the definition (see the explicative definition). This way, the definition of a word is a direct part of the debate.

Application

Definitions of Migration and their Impact

Now that we know what definitions in philosophy are, we can apply this tool to a specific concept, in this case migration. First, let us have a look at the different kinds of definitions that were mentioned in the description, and how migration would be defined accordingly. I will give some examples, but there are many more possible definitions.

The first kind of definition discussed is the lexical definition. Two examples of lexical or dictional definitions of migration are ‘moving of the population’, translated from the Dikke van Dale or ‘the movement of (groups) of people from one place to the other’, translated from the website of the Rijksoverheid. As you can see, these definitions are short, general, and not very specific. They can be interpreted in many ways, and it seems like the scope is very broad.

An explicative definition of migration is an improved version of an existing definition. If we want to make the lexical definitions we just saw explicative, we could narrow down the scope. An example is to change ‘migration is the movement of (groups) of people from one place to the other’ to ‘migration is the movement of (groups) of people from one country to the other’. This way moving from one house to another house in the same street is not seen as migration, which might be closer to the general usage of the word ‘migration’. A context specific explicative definition could be defining migrants as refugees or ‘gelukszoekers’, fortune seekers.

An example of a persuasive definition of migration could also be defining migration as ‘fortune seeking’. This gives the term a loaded, negative connotation, which influences the way people think of refugees. Especially because this definition is often applied not to ‘regular’ immigrants but to refugees who had to flee their country because of, e.g., the political situation. In fact, a quarter of the Dutch think that refugees are fortune seekers. I will come back to this definition and what its implications can be, specifically within politics.

How do these definitions relate to the general remarks about definitions? The first point was that definitions should be proper, they should be neither too narrow nor too broad. It seems like the term ‘fortune seekers’ should refer to people who are doing fine in the country they currently live in but still want to move to another country, for example to get rich because of tax benefits. They are, quite literally, seeking fortune. However, within political debate, the term ‘fortune seekers’ is often used more broadly. Economic refugees, or even refugees in general, are called fortune seekers. The term has a strongly negative connotation, more so than the term (economic) refugee itself. In instances like these, the scope of the definition might be too broad. It includes instances that should not be included, since it seems highly unfair to call refugees fortune seekers. However, there might be a point to make against this. Within political debate, this term can be used to evoke this negative connotation, to win the debate. It could be said that in this case it is a good definition, since the goal is to broaden the scope of the term ‘fortune seekers’ from exclusively people who migrate to get rich to all refugees, and this goal is reached. Bart Zuidervaart wrote on this topic for his weekly column in the Trouw, where he shows how people think of asylum seekers and how politics plays a role in this.

This shows a possible problem. That a definition should be proper means that the scope should be neither too broad nor too narrow, it should cover all the cases that it is intended to cover and no more than that. In the case of fortune seekers, the definition might seem too broadly used to be (ethically) justified, but it is intended to be that broad for the sake of the argument. It is unclear whether this should be considered when thinking of a proper definition, or that the intention is the only thing that matters, regardless of ethical consequences. It looks like applying the term ‘fortune seekers’ to all refugees might not be ethically justified, but it does what it is intended to do and therefore could be considered ‘proper’.

The result of the used definition in this example can be arguing at cross-purposes. This might be an indication that using the term fortune seekers is indeed an improper definition, since arguing at cross-purposes is a result of improper definitions. Within political debate, people who argue against immigration to the Netherlands use this term to win people over and show the ‘dangers’ of immigration. To me, it seems like politicians often leave out the distinction between economic refugees and political refugees. They argue against economic refugees (which in itself can be considered ethically problematic), but since they do not make the distinction, they (seemingly intentionally) take down political refugees as well.

If we were to define ‘fortune seekers’ properly, we would probably broaden the scope even more, overcoming the negative load it has now that it is related to migrants or refugees. In some way, every person is a fortune seeker, everyone wants to live a good life, as said by the Dutch Secretary of State Eric van der Burg (2022). They, too, just want to live a good life. They do not differ from us in that respect. If this is how we define the word, if this is how we think of migrants, this could possibly change our view on them.

This idea that a change in definition can change your view on a topic is something I encountered in a small research I did. In the case of fortune seekers, the used definition has extreme consequences for the ‘fortune seeker’s’ life, such as not being welcome here in the Netherlands. I wondered how people look at this topic and what exactly the consequences of different definitions are, so I made a Google Form to research this. One definition of migration I used that I have not mentioned yet, I took from Stichting Vluchteling, ‘Fleeing your current country for economical reasons’. The form was filled in by 15 people.

One thing that stood out to me was that the form did make people think. Replies to the form showed that people started pondering if migration is about a single person or a group, if it only applies to human beings or to animals too, if moving from one house to the other is migration or if it only is migration when you move from one country to the other – even the question if ideas can migrate was asked. For example, someone said ‘It makes me wonder if the definitions of migration often include countries’ and someone else stated ‘Trying to define ‘migration’ makes me think about how difficult it is to establish conditions for countries to allow/deny migrants’ (my translation). This does show how the chosen definition can play a role in a debate.

As I expected, a change of definition also changes people’s opinions on who should be allowed to migrate. Almost all of the respondents said that this was not the case, but their answers stated otherwise. There were no big changes in opinion between the different definitions, but there were changes, nonetheless. Three people changed their mind on whether fortune seekers should be allowed to migrate. Considering their own definition, they did not think fortune seekers should be allowed to migrate, but considering the definition ‘Fleeing your current country for economical reasons’, they did. The biggest difference in opinion was in the case of a friend moving from Deventer to Groningen for her studies. Five people changed their opinion on this matter when considering a different definition. I doubt whether they actually believe this should not be allowed, since most of the respondents moved for their studies themselves, but it does show how opinions can change when thinking about a different definition.

We now know what the role of definitions within philosophy is, and how we can apply this tool to the topic of migration. The question remains, why do all this? What is the use? As we saw, not only the used words but also the implied definition of a word can influence a debate and people’s opinions on the matter. We noticed this in the case of ‘fortune seekers’, a term loaded with  negative connotations, used in ways that seem ethically doubtful. Within politics, it can be helpful to realize the role of definitions, to discuss them, to make sure all involved in a debate use the same definitions. As we saw, this can result in clarity, fairness, avoiding fallacies, et cetera.

However, the role of definitions extends beyond politics. To give an example, when you are in an argument with someone it might be good to examine whether this might be a result of using different definitions and therefore missing each other’s point. You might accidentally commit a fallacy! In order to communicate effectively and properly, it is worth taking a look at how you define keywords within the conversation, any conversation.

Philosophical Exercises

1. If you strip the term ‘migration’ from all your prejudices and try to focus on the essence of what migration is, what definition would you come up with?
2. Think about the different definitions of migration mentioned in this chapter and write down whether they change your ideas on who should be considered a migrant and who should be allowed to migrate.
3. Do these different kinds of definitions change your opinion on ‘fortune seekers’ and whether they should be allowed to migrate?
4. Think about the meaning of ‘proper’ definitions. Is something a proper definition when it helps you reach your goal, or when it comes close to the daily use of the word? Or maybe you can think of a third way of assessing whether something is a proper definition?
5. Think about the role of definitions in your daily life. See how a definition can influence conversations you have. Think of instances in your own life where a misunderstanding due to a difference in used definitions occurred.