amac,
I would assume that "functional definition" means the way a word or term is used and understood in common language and use.
No. I'm sorry I did not explain this properly. We have real definitions and dictionary definitions, and then we have functional definitions. A functional definition is what you choose a word to mean for a specific treatise. Typically, in scholarly articles, the author will start by defining key terms. Then, he or she will explicitly tell the reader that for the specific purposes of that text, this term means so-and-so.
For example, the term "religion" has many meanings and is very hard to define. If you write a text on religion, you can e.g. define it as "beliefs and practices related to interaction with culturally postulated superhuman agents." Then, your arguments will follow from this definition, and nobody can come and say that e.g. money or pop music is a "religion" and that doesn't fit your arguments, because, for your purposes, they aren't. Naturally, for others it can mean something else, making pop music or golf or whatever a religion.
So when I say it is legitimate to use "cult" about the WTS when we use a functional defintion, it is precisely because we have chosen to ignore all irrelevant dictionary definitions, and instead focus on one of our own choice.
However, casual writing is not explicit in defining terms, so it is IMO best to use expressions that the readers don't already have a million different associations about. JWs like playing the definiton game, so they may for example say that a cult is a group following a specific human leader (which they don't), and thus get themselves off the hook. Such charged words leads to debates about defintions that just take the attention away from the actual nuts & bolts issues. Thus, even as a functional definition, it may be unwise to use emotionally sensitive words that are not clearly defined.
The higher precision we have in our language, the easier it will be to hit our target.
- Jan
