Hermeneutical Disarmament

Hermeneutical Disarmament: How language change can undermine understanding and communication

Words and phrases enable us to understand the world and our experiences. In Epistemic Injustice, Miranda Fricker reports Wendy Sanford’s experience of depression following the birth of her child in the 1960s. Without a word to name her experience, Sanford thought that she was guilty of a “personal deficiency”. Upon learning the term postpartum depression at a workshop, Sanford’s perspective radically changed; she recognised what she was going through as a medical condition.

Changing meanings

However, words and phrases often change their meaning. Gaslighting, refers to a kind of abuse in which one person causes another to doubt their own experiences. In Patrick Hamilton’s 1938 play Gas Light, Jack persuades his wife Bella that she cannot trust her perception or memory; when he takes a painting down from the wall and dims the gas lights, Jack convinces Bella that she is imagining these changes, giving him control over her. More recently, however, gaslighting is used to refer generally to lying or manipulating.

Taking these observations together reveals a problem. Words and phrases help us to understand and communicate about the world and our experiences of it. But the meaning of these words and phrases can change. When this happens, we might lose the words that we need to understand or communicate about whatever it is we want to understand or communicate about. I call this hermeneutical disarmament.

Hermeneutical disarmament

Hermeneutical disarmament: “the process by which a person is rendered less able to understand or communicate experiences, ideas, and other phenomena as a result of semantic change to the linguistic term (word or phrase) that could previously have been deployed for these purposes.” (Morgan 2025: 1076)

When the words we use change their meaning, this can leave us less able to understand and communicate about the original meaning of these words. It is clearly useful for victims of abusive manipulation (and their support network) to have a widely understood term, gaslighting, for this specific kind of psychological abuse. It helps them to understand what the victim is going through, aid existing victims, and reduce the likelihood of future victimisation. If this term disappears, because gaslighting comes to mean simply lying, then a useful tool is lost.

Words naming medical conditions can be similarly useful tools. Without the term postpartum depression, Sanford might have been unable to access relevant support and continued, mistakenly, to view her condition as a person failing.

In other cases, there is a risk that the misuse of medical terms might lead to changes in their meaning, depriving us of useful terminology. Some speakers use OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder) to describe a particular care for cleanliness or organisation (“My flatmate is driving me crazy; she’s so OCD!”), rather than obsessions and compulsive behaviours that would warrant clinical intervention. Someone might say that they are depressed when they are feeling sad, even when they do not suffer from the often-debilitating psychological condition by this name.

When used literally, these terms serve as useful tools for people experiencing the relevant condition and those around them. They enable a person to understand what they are going through (just as postpartum depression assisted Wendy Sanford), explain this to others, and secure relevant accommodations in work and education. 

When these terms are (mis-)used to refer to something other than the medical condition in question, there is the risk that, over time, these alternative meanings might dominate, so that we lose generally understood phrases for the medical conditions. This would deprive people who suffer from these conditions and those around them of a useful tool for understanding and communicating. So, there is a risk that changes to the meaning of medical terms might inflict hermeneutical disarmament on those who experience these conditions.

Photo credit: Dustin Smith, Skywall Photography

Robert Morgan is a Lecturer and Consultant at IDEA: The Ethics Centre, University of Leeds, teaching mostly at the SWJTU-Leeds Joint School in Chengdu and at Centres for Doctoral Training around the UK. Robert’s research primarily focuses on applied sexual ethics, although he also works on topics in epistemology and metaphysics as these bear on how persons relate to each other. He is currently working on what it means for one person to touch another through something such as clothing (with Will Hornett), and on the value of interpersonal sexual activity.