Language Games in the Public Square
Ludwig Wittgenstein was arguably the most important philosopher of the twentieth century. He insisted that words could only be understood in the context of the activities in which they are used [1]. It is only then that their meaning and significance can be grasped. Despite some of the problems of Wittgensteinian thought, he does offer some useful insights. He regarded philosophy as a task for clarification that would prevent us from being led astray by the misleading appearances of ordinary language [2]. This sounds rather promising because Christians, according to Christ and His apostles, are to be people of truth (c.f. Jn. 8:31).
Yet the public often gets snookered into many of the games played in their social context. For example, political transition sometimes provides an opportunity for deception. Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer notes that the recent GOP resurgence in Congress was driven by more than economic concerns. He contends Americans want and need to address “not just matters of the pocketbook – but matters of the heart, too” [3]. As chairman of the Institute for American Values, he is gravely concerned over the language invoked by politicians who minimize matters like abortion and gay marriage by calling them “cultural.” He is correct in this concern, for this subtlety in language obscures the fact that these issues are profoundly moral, as well as social and economic.
There is a subtle language game that often slips under the radar of the average citizen. This game is the deceptive use of language. As we will see, several features of contemporary American political language conceal the moral dimensions of all life, namely, sexuality.
The Bedroom = Privacy & Equality
The language about sexuality used in mainstream media has often misled us by rendering these matters as personal, or better yet, private. Perpetuated by the bitter complaint for conservatives to keep their theology off other people’s bodies, the idea that sexuality is a matter that warrants boundaries violates the private sphere of the bedroom. Of course, the irony of this is that bodies pervade the landscape of billboards, Internet ads, and other venues.
The language of the bedroom is one often employed by those advocating legalized same-sex unions. The word bedroom carries with it the same private sentiment, corresponding conveniently with the language of personal rights. On the face of it, it would be difficult to argue that someone should have a say concerning an act that occurs in the confines of their neighbor’s bedroom. Ironically, the legislature, and sometimes the courts are invoked to legitimize, protect, and even give preference to any desired arrangement. The problem with this is that sexuality in most cultures has always been about much more than the act of intercourse. In Scripture the bedroom is always connected to the idea of children and monogamy, hardly allowing marriage and civil unions to be about sexual acts alone.
The language of a “home” has quickly been replaced with the words of personal liberty and equality [4]. Given how equality is linked in recent history with slavery and the oppression of women, it automatically slants any discussion. To be absent from the “equality” camp implies that one favors inequality. This conceals the fact that equality-language always assumes that it is an end in and of itself. For instance, while the Declaration of Independence does say all men have been endowed with certain unalienable rights, we constantly arbitrate the application of those rights. Convicted criminals forfeit some of their rights by virtue of their choices. Others do so by virtue of their station in life, such as those under 35 being unable to run for the presidency. In summary, there are always moral norms and values, which are indeed assumed in the law, that set guidelines for how liberty and equality is applied.
Historian Lauren Winner helps us understand the fallacy of relegating sexual ethics to the private realm. If we were truly autonomous individuals living in hermetically sealed spaces, then complete freedom might make sense. However, sex has public consequences. As Winner says, “How we comport ourselves sexually shapes who we are. If we believe that sex forms us, then it goes without saying that is public business, because how we build the persons we are – persons who are social and communal and political and economic beings – is itself a matter of social concern” [5].
“Safe Sex”
The language of “safe sex” has emerged in order to respond to the rise in unwanted pregnancies and STDs. This language accompanies an important social force, that being the rise of various forms of contraception in the twentieth century. “Safe” conveys notions of security and control. This terminology softens the issue such that the teenagers raised in this culture come to believe that sexuality is a neutral practice that can either be practiced safely or dangerously. “Safe sex” fails to convey the reality that sex carries emotional, physical, and financial consequences regardless if each sexual act does not result in childbirth.
Despite the prevalence of the language of safety, illegitimacy rates continue to escalate. A 2007 report indicates that nearly 40% of babies born in the United States were by unwed mothers [6]. Call it indiscretion, but the simple fact remains that “safe” seems to be inadequate as a modifier for sex. Lauren Winner reminds us that what others do sexually is everyone’s business as citizens because sex can lead to children, and the society that we mutually inhabit has a vested interest in “defining and maintaining the structures that care for babies” [7]. For sex to be safe it requires moral choice on the part of the person – something frequently overlooked due to the language used.
Choice and Moral Responsibility
Finally, abortion in this discussion is relevant because sex often leads to unwanted pregnancy, making abortion a potential choice. Since Roe v. Wade, abortion advocates have frequently invoked the language of choice. This language remains the prevailing terminology among politicians who describe themselves as “pro-choice.” The language of choice is powerful indeed. To not be pro-choice then naturally implies that you are anti-choice – a rather difficult label to bear in the land of opportunity.
Similarly, health care advocates argue that all citizens have the right to clean, affordable health care. Thus, those seeking abortions should be provided that service. After all, they may seek back-alley butchers otherwise [8]. The language of “moral responsibility” has been used to support this perspective [9]. This potent linguistic construction weighs upon us as citizens because unless the policy in question is supported, one is by implication immoral, or irresponsible. Ironically, the use of this phrase presupposes some standard of morality – the very thing that many social conservatives are accused of imposing on others!
Sexuality cannot merely be understood as “private” or an issue of personal choice. Sex is a public matter because it has to do with bodies. Any number of medical conditions is rooted in some state influenced by how someone manages or neglects their body. This means any matter concerning the body is up for public discussion since it is with our bodies that we inhabit the social arena. Therefore, the moment a public policy is enacted which relates to public health we must not pretend that what one does with their bodies privately is not also a public concern.
The same applies for the end-of-life issues as well. Theologian Stanley Hauerwas often asks his students to consider how the discussion would change if the word “euthanasia” were changed to “self-life taking.” This example presents the issue of death in rather different terms since it is reminiscent of the language of rights and freedom – language certainly embedded in the Declaration and Constitution, though their meaning becomes quite murky in the ways they are utilized today.
Why Language is Power, Sometimes
Many postmodern thinkers have contended that language is a tool wielded by the elite to exert power over others [10]. An honest survey of twentieth history political regimes in Cuba, South Africa, and countless others would reveal this to be largely true. A Christian account of language acknowledges these tendencies due to human sinfulness. Yet Christianity would also affirm the possibility of truthful, non-coercive communication. Christians should not shirk from meaningful discourse just because of the capacity of language for manipulation. Simply dismissing a discussion and dubbing it “just semantics” establishes the point – of course it’s semantics. Words have meaning. And the names ascribed to practices carry real-life consequences, especially for how we think about the subject of sexuality.
The language we use as Christians is a matter of the utmost significance. Consider the Creator’s naming of the works of creation, and then enjoining Adam to name the animals. Much of the Bible speaks to the crucial use of words in a way that honors the incarnate Word, particularly the books of Ephesians and James. Yet when insufficient attention is given to the use of language, one can easily be lured into a language game one geared more toward deception and power than peace and truth [11]. The Christian response to these games is one of truth with love. Only then will language serve its God-honored end in politics, the public square, and the Church.
__________________________________________________________________
[1] Anthony Kenny, Wittgenstein (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 14.
[2] Kenny, 17-18.
[3] USA Today, Wednesday, November 17, 2010 (11A).
[4] National Gay and Lesbian Task Force –
http://www.thetaskforce.org/about_us/mission_statements. Accessed on 10 January 2011.
[5] Lauren Winner, Real Sex: The Naked Truth about Sexual Chastity (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005), 49.
[6] National Center for Health Statistics – http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm. Accessed on 10 January 2011.
[7] Winner, 50.
[8] Not surprisingly, this very line of reasoning relies on a consequentialist approach to ethics, one that liberals often repudiate when it comes to issues such as torture.
[9] President Obama invoked this language in a September 2009 address to a joint session of Congress on the matter of health care. He read a letter in the speech from the late Senator Ted Kennedy who said concerning health care that it is decisive for our future prosperity, and that “it concerns more than material things. What we face,” he wrote, “is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”
[10] Postmodern authors such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida would be among these; I have in view the common feature of postmodernism’s assault on language, which has resulted in unhelpful approaches to literary theory and interpretation in general. Specifically deconstruction and post-structuralism are the culprits. See Kevin Vanhoozer’s Is There a Meaning in this Text? Also, Leland Ryken, Contemporary Literary Theory: A Christian Appraisal.
[11] Quentin Schultze, Communication for Life: Christian Stewardship in Community and Media (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000); Schultze is a professor of communication arts and sciences at Calvin College, specializing broadly in media ecology. He notes that historically in the Christian tradition communication and language specifically has been understood as a means of grace and a means to bring peace to one’s fellow man.
Recent Comments