Today I was listening to someone on NPR discussing Henry Clay's part in bringing about the Missouri Compromise. The speaker noted that the word meant a negotiated agreement rather than an abandonment of principles, as it now seems to mean. How do y'all use it? Why the change?

I do use it to mean "negotiated agreement." As part of my MBA course, I took a fascinating class in conflict resolution. There we learned the fine art of arriving at peaceable agreements with those with whom we are in conflict, that every disagreement does not have to be a zero-sum game, and that there are solutions to disagreements in which everyone can win.

Not that I've been able to apply this skill universally in every conflict in my life, but true compromise does live!

I have always been a great believer in compromise and to me it means a negotiated agreement where both parties negotiate. Inevitably there will be an element of give and take on both sides, but, as Wordmatic says, it is possible to reach a win/win solution in many instances.

However, there are a few instances where this is not possible. For example, I once had a man working for me who said, "The word 'compromise' isn't in my vocabulary". Meaning that he would never accept any agreement that involved his having to alter his initial stance.

Since it is an inevitable part of management to occasionally have to refuse to accept certain stances or requests, this chap was near enough impossible to manage effectively and, as had been the case in most of his previous jobs, he finally left. Eventually he set himself up as an independent consultant where he could argue only with himself.

Any agreement requires an element of compromise on both sides. The idea that to compromise is a sign of weakness is wrong-headed. There may be a crossover here with appeasement, which means giving concessions to one more powerful. Even those negotiating from a position of strength often compromise to reach a mutually satisfactory solution.

quote:

[compromise] meant a negotiated agreement rather than an abandonment of principles

As a verb, 'compromise' is ambiguous. I've heard this saying, though Google doesn't reveal it on the web:

It was a principled compromise, and not a principle compromised.

I think of "compromise" as being a powerful word, and not a weak one. When people can really compromise, much can be gained. I think that little-minded people are the ones who don't compromise.

In looking up the word, I remembered the other definition that we use in nursing and medicine often, and that is an endangerment, such as to compromise one's health. It is disconcerting to see such a powerful word have such an opposite meaning as well.

quote: have such an opposite meaning

I wonder how that arose?

quote:

Originally posted by shufitz:
quote: have such an opposite meaning

I wonder how that arose?

We've discussed words with two opposite meanings, such as "cleave," but "compromise" has escaped scrutiny until now. In modern parlance, it seems a bad thing to compromise, apparently taking on the medical meaning that Kalleh stated. It seems to me we're losing a shade of meaning that no other word quite matches.

Yeah, yeah, curl your lip, snarl, and call me a prescriptivist, but such cases suggest to me that a bit of prescriptivism isn't such a bad thing!

You're right, Asa. "Negotiate" is similar, but "compromise" is where you arrive after you negotiate successfully, and thus a different word.

Unless we're talking about a "compromised immune system" or something similar, I just don't see "compromise" as a negative word, Asa. I actually see it quite positively, as I do "collaborate" (though the latter is overused, I think).

So if you ever find shu in a compromising position, that'll be a good thing, right?

And don't forget that in times of war "collaborate" is a very bad thing to do.