Some words are hard to agree on. People use them in many ways. One word is "art." Some think a drawing is art. Others may not. This can lead to big talks. Do you have a favorite kind of art?
Some words are hard to agree on. People use them in many ways. One idea is called an "essentially contested concept."
Walter Gallie came up with this idea in 1956. It describes words that people value. Examples are "art," "science," and "justice."
People often argue about these words. They disagree on what the words mean. Each person thinks they are right.
These talks can go on for a long time. You cannot solve them with just facts. People use the same word but mean different things.
Even when people argue, they agree on the word. They just want to use it the best way. It is a way to keep thinking and learning.
Some big ideas are hard to define. People often argue about what they mean. Walter Gallie called these "essentially contested concepts." He first shared this idea in 1956.
These are not just simple mistakes. They are words that carry value. People use them to judge things. Examples include "art," "science," and "social justice." When people use these words, they often disagree. One person might say a painting is art. Another person might disagree.
These arguments are special. You cannot solve them with just facts or logic. Each person thinks their way is the right way. They feel others are using the word wrongly. This happens because the ideas are complex. They have many parts. People give different parts more weight.
These ideas also change over time. As the world changes, the meaning of "democracy" might change too. There is no single best way to use these words. Even so, people keep using them. They all agree the word is important. This keeps the talk going. It helps us think more deeply about the world.
Have you ever argued with a friend about what makes something "art"?
You might think a certain painting is beautiful, but they might disagree. This kind of disagreement happens with many big ideas. Philosophers call these "essentially contested concepts." These are special words or phrases that carry value judgments. When we use them, we are often judging if something is good or important. Because these words are about values, people rarely agree on one single meaning.
How do these disagreements actually work? It is not just a simple mistake or a confusion of words. In a normal argument, you might use facts or logic to find the truth. But with these concepts, facts alone cannot settle the debate.
Each person believes their own definition is the correct one. They often feel that others are using the word in the wrong way. This happens because the ideas are very complex and have many different parts. People look at these parts and decide which ones are most important. One person might focus on one part, while another person focuses on something else entirely.
This idea was first shared by a thinker named Walter Bryce Gallie. He proposed the term in 1956.
He wanted to help people understand why certain big words cause so many debates. Gallie focused on abstract ideas rather than physical things. For example, saying "this painting is made of oil" is easy to check with your eyes. But saying "this painting is art" is much harder because "art" is a contested concept. Gallie even wrote a second, slightly different version of his idea in 1964. He showed that these disputes are a natural part of how we talk about big subjects.
There are many examples of these tricky words in our world. Scholars often struggle with words like "democracy," "science," or "religion."
In the study of money, the word "bank" can also be a contested concept. Some people might use it to talk about a place for money. Others might use it to talk about the edge of a river. These concepts are also open-ended, meaning they can change over time. As the world changes, our goals for something like "democracy" might shift too. There is no single "best" way to use these words that everyone will ever accept.
Understanding this can actually help us have better conversations. If we know a word is essentially contested, we might be more patient.
Instead of just fighting, we can try to understand why others see things differently. We might try to find a new meaning that everyone can agree on. Or, we might realize that the same word is actually being used for different ideas. Even though people disagree, they all keep using the same words. This is because they all agree that the ideas themselves are very important to our lives.
An essentially contested concept is a specific type of abstract term. These terms carry value judgments, which means they involve opinions about what is good or important. Examples include words like "art," "social justice," "power," and "democracy." While people generally agree on the basic idea of these words, they disagree deeply on how to use them. This disagreement is not just a simple mistake or a lack of information. Instead, the dispute is built into the very nature of the concept itself.
To understand how this works, we must look at the mechanism of the dispute. In a normal argument, you might use logic or scientific evidence to find a single truth. However, these disputes cannot be settled by empirical evidence or logic alone. Each person involved believes their own interpretation is the correct one. They often argue that others are using the term inappropriately. This creates a cycle where each party defends their view with what they claim is convincing evidence.
There are different ways to categorize these disagreements. Sometimes, a dispute is just a case of polysemy. Polysemy occurs when a word's meanings have multiplied or extended over time. For example, in finance, the word "bank" might be an essentially contested concept. However, if one person means a financial institution and another means a river bank, that is actually homonymy. Homonyms are different words that just happen to sound the same. A scholar must determine if the dispute is a genuine disagreement over one concept or just a confusion of two different words.
The idea was first proposed by Walter Bryce Gallie in 1956. He published his initial thoughts in 1956a and a revised version in 1964. Gallie wanted to explain why certain abstract terms cause endless disputes. He noted that while you can easily prove a fact, like whether a painting uses oil or tempera, you cannot easily prove if a painting is "art." This is because "art" is a qualitative notion. Gallie's work helped scholars understand that these debates are a natural part of using complex language.
Gallie identified specific features that make a concept essentially contested. First, these concepts are evaluative, meaning they deliver value judgments. Second, they describe entities that are internally complex. This complexity means different people will place different weights on different parts of the concept. For instance, one person might value one part of "democracy" more than another. Third, these concepts are open-ended and vague. They change as circumstances in the world change. Because they are open-ended, there is no single "best" version that everyone can agree on.
These concepts are very significant in the social sciences. In fields like history, religion, or science, scholars often use terminology inconsistently. This happens because there is no single, universally accepted definition for these terms. For example, a historian studying "religion" must use specific tools to interpret the topic. Without these tools, the term remains contested by default. Some scholars even suggest that these concepts are "essentially contestable." This means the concept itself contains an internal conflict of ideas that naturally generates disputes.
Understanding these concepts can change how we communicate. Some thinkers believe that recognizing a concept is essentially contested can lead to more enlightened discussions. Instead of seeing a disagreement as a conflict between truth and error, people can see it as a clash of reasonable interpretations. There are three ways to potentially resolve these disputes. One way is to find a new meaning that everyone can accept. Another is to convince everyone to use one specific meaning. A third way is to declare that the word actually represents several different concepts.
Where will your curiosity go next?
More to explore
✨ What else?
Related topics you might enjoy
🔬 Go deeper
More advanced topics to explore
🪜 Step back
Simpler topics to build understanding
What is Nepedia?
A free, ad-free encyclopedia for children. Every article is written at five reading levels, so the same page works for a five-year-old and a fifteen-year-old — use the level switcher above to see this one change. No account needed to read.