Performative language - Medium

The performative nature of language is not something people are explicitly aware of in general. As a consequence, when a statement is phrased as ... GetunlimitedaccessOpeninappHomeNotificationsListsStoriesWritePublishedinHumanistVoicesPerformativelanguageHowphilosophyoflanguagecanhelpuscommunicateinapolarizedsocietyPoliticalhashtags:abortionismurder,metoo,dairyisrape,fuckthepolice,blacklivesmatter,meatismurder,nomeansno,taxationistheft,notallmen,alllivesmatter.Manysaywearelivinginthepost-truthera.AsI’msuremanyotherswillpointout,however,misinformationanddisingenuouspersuasionmethodshavealwaysexisted.Still,withtheriseofsocialmedia,itisagrowingconcernthatwearelivingaparticularlyworryingwaveofpost-truthness,onewithanunprecedentedscaleandfullofitsownnewparticularities.Peoplearenotjusttrickedintobelievingfalsitiesanymore,theynolongercareaboutwhat’strueorfalseaslongasitsupportstheirnarrativesandhashtags.Butcanwedrawasharpboundarybetweensmart,rational,objectivepeople,andcrazy,fact-denyingpost-truthers?Ordoweallusenon-factuallanguagetosomeextent?Whatarewereallydoingwhenwesaythingslike“meatismurder”or“alllivesmatter”?ImportantconceptsBeforewediveintosomereal-worldexamplesofhowlanguageisused,itisimportanttobrieflygothroughafewimportantconceptsfromthehistoryofthephilosophyoflanguage.FuzzycategoriesEubulidesofMiletusisknowninphilosophyforintroducingwhataretodaycalled“soritesparadoxes”.Asoritesparadox(fromtheGreeksôritês,meaningheap),isaparadoxthatarisesfromvaguedefinitions.Ifyouremoveonegrainofsandfromaheap,youdon’tturnitintoanon-heap.Therefore,youcanremoveanynumberofgrainsfromaheapanditwillneverturnintoanon-heap,evenwhenthereisonlyonegrainleft.Butnobodycallsonegrainofsandaheap.Mostpeoplewouldprobablyagree,ifasked,thathumansarepronetoblack-and-whitethinking,andthatthisisbad.Butfewofusactuallymakeasconstantconsciousefforttoavoidthistendencyofoursinourdailylives.Ourtribalbrainsarequicktolabelpeopleasbelongingeithertoourteamofthatoftheenemy,forexample,andit’shardtoacceptthattherearemanypossibilitiesinbetween.Throughoutmostofthehistoryofphilosophy,systemsoflogichavebeenmainlybivalent.Thatis,theyconsideredthatpropositionscouldonlyhavetwotruth-values:trueorfalse.In1965,however,LotfiA.ZadehchallengedthisparadigmwiththepublicationofFuzzysets,accordingtowhicha“fuzzysetisaclassofobjectswithacontinuumofgradesofmembership”.Inthissystem,therefore,whensomebodyasks“doesitemAbelongtosetS?”,insteadhavingtoanswer0(no)or1(yes),theanswermaybeanyrealnumberwithinthisinterval(e.g.0.34or0.93).Whenwemakeanefforttoalwaysrememberthattheanswertoaquestioncanhavemanyvaluesbetween“yes”and“no”,itbecomesincreasinglyobviousthatveryfewcategoriesinreallifeareactuallysharp.Mostofthemarequitefuzzy.Language-gamesHeretheterm“language-game”ismeanttobringintoprominencethefactthatthespeakingoflanguageispartofanactivity,orofaformoflife.–Wittgenstein,1953BeforeWittgenstein’sPhilosophicalInvestigations,philosophyoflanguagetendedtofocusprimarilyonlanguageasatoolfordescribingfactsaboutrealityandthelogicalrelationshipsbetweenthem.Frege,RussellandtheyoungWittgensteinwerethemainforcesbehindwhat’stodaycalledideallanguagephilosophy,amovementthattriedtocreateaperfect,“ideal”philosophicallanguage,whichshouldberigorousandfreeofambiguities,whichtheybelievedwerethesourceofmostdisagreement.Inhisearlywork,Wittgensteinevencomparedlanguagetopictures,claimingthatbotharetoolsforcreatingrepresentationsoftheworld.Thisapproachtophilosophywaslargelyresponsibleforthedevelopmentofmodernsymboliclogicand,accordingtoScottSoames,subsequentlyinfluencedtheworkofGödelandTuring,whichsetthefoundationsofthedigitalrevolution.PHILOSOPHY—LudwigWittgenstein(TheSchoolofLife)Althoughmakingaperfectdescriptivelanguageprovedtobearatherfruitfulenterprise,naturallanguagedoesmuchmorethandescribereality.Afterashortphilosophicalhiatus,thisstartedtobecomeincreasinglyobviousforWittgenstein.Herealizedthattoomuchofwhatwedowithlanguageisnotdescriptive,andthatanytheoryofmeaningmustaccountforthat.InPhilosophicalInvestigations,heinvitesustothinkoflanguageasatoolusedtoachieveapurposeinagame.Hismainexampleisthatofa“builderslanguagegame”,whichconsistsofnothingbutthewords“block”,“pillar”“slab”,and“beam”.Thebuilderscouldbeimmigrantswithnocommonlanguage,andtheymightnotevenknowwhatthesewordsreallymeaninthestandardEnglishlanguage,butiftheyknowwhattodowhentheyheareachword,andtheycanfunctionasbuilders,thenthosewordsaremeaningfulfortheminthatlanguagegame.AmoreeverydayexampleWittgensteingivesofhowwordsextractthemeaningfromtheircontextsisexclamations,suchas“Water!”whichcanmeanradicallydifferentthingsindifferentcontexts(e.g.“Bringwaterfastorhewilldie!”,or“Stopthecarnoworwe’llgetstuck!”).Theimportantrevelationisthatutteranceshaveintentionsthatmayincludedescribingrealitybutareinnowaylimitedtoit.Ifaparentsaystoafrightenedchild:“Don’tworry—everything’sgonnatobefine”,theycan’tknowitreallywillbefine.Theyaren’tplayingthe“RationalPredictionFromAvailableFacts”game.They’replayinganothergame:the“WordsasanInstrumentofComfortandSecurity”game.–AlaindeBotton,2015Family-resemblanceWhilediscussinglanguage-games,Wittgensteindefendshimselfagainstthecriticismthatheisnotproperlydefiningtheterm.Whatarethenecessaryandsufficientconditionsthatanactivitymusthaveinordertobecalledalanguage-game?Thisiswhenheintroducesthesecondofthetwomostfamousconceptsofhiswork:family-resemblance.Considerforexampletheproceedingsthatwecall“games”.Imeanboard-games,card-games,ball-games,Olympicgames,andsoon.Whatiscommontothemall?—Don’tsay:“Theremustbesomethingcommon,ortheywouldnotbecalled‘games’“—butlookandseewhetherthereisanythingcommontoall.—Forifyoulookatthemyouwillnotseesomethingthatiscommontoall,butsimilarities,relationships,andawholeseriesofthematthat.–Wittgenstein,1953Accordingtothisview,differentgamesarelikesdifferentmembersofafamily.AlicemaylooknothinglikehercousinJack,butherbrotherBobmaylookalotlikeJack’ssister,Jill.WhenyoulookatAliceandJackalone,itmayseemliketheyhavenothingincommon,andyetwhenyoulookatJillandBob,ifyouknowalltheirdegreesofrelatedness,itbecomesclearthatAliceandJackmustbelongtothesamefamily.Manypeoplehavetriedtodefine“game”sincethen,andperhapssomedefinitionsmayseemquitesatisfactory.Butwe’veallstruggledtodefineatermbefore.Ipersonallythinkagoodexampleisreligion.Manypeopleseemtohaveatendencytosubconsciouslyassumethatalltermshaveadefinitive,authoritative,academic,prescriptivedefinition.Butthisisjustnotthecase.Thisisnothowlanguageworks.Theword“religion”wasnotinventedbyacademics.Rather,itisconstantlyappropriatedbyacademicswhoeachtrytocomeupwiththeirownworkingdefinitionthatfitstheeverydayusagecloseenoughtobeaccepted,andwhichispreciseenoughforthepurposesoftheirwork.Somemaythentrytoimposethatnewdefinitiononpeople,maskingtheirprescriptivenatureandportrayingthemasdescriptivefact,butacademicsdon’townlanguage.Alanguagecommunitycollectivelyownsthelanguage.Thisshiftinparadigmledtowhatcametobereferredtoasordinarylanguagephilosophy.Accordingtothisnewapproach,whenansweringaphilosophicalquestion,philosophersshouldn’tproceedbytakingtheexpressionspresentinthatquestion,redefiningthemintheirownterms,transformingthemintotechnicaljargonwiththeirownparticularmeaning,removedfromeverydaylanguage,andthenprovideananswerusingthisnewterminology.Suchananswerwouldnolongerbeananswertotheoriginalquestion,butananswertoanewmadeupquestionthatonlyphilosophersunderstand.Whenphilosophersuseaword—“knowledge,”“being,”“object,”“I,”“proposition,”“name”—andtrytograsptheessenceofthething,onemustalwaysaskoneself:isthewordeveractuallyusedinthiswayinthelanguage-gamewhichisitsoriginalhome?—Whatwedoistobringwordsbackfromtheirmetaphysicaltotheireverydayuse.–Wittgenstein,1953PrototypetheoryInfluencedbyWittgenstein’sconceptoffamily-resemblance,cognitivescientistsdevelopedprototypetheory,thestudyofatypeofcategorizationwhichisbelievedtobeimplementedbyourbrainsinwhichcertainmembersaremorecentralor“prototypical”thanothers,whicharemore“peripheral”.Thesefuzzy,Wittgensteiniancategoriesarecontrastedwith“classical”or“Aristotelian”categories.ThepsychologistsSharonArmstrongandHenryandLilaGleitmanreplicatedRosch’sexperimentsusingthemostclassical,Aristoteliancategoriestheycouldfind,“oddnumber”and“woman.”Thesubjectsrated“7”asanexcellentexampleofanoddnumber,and“447”asnotsuchagoodexample;theythoughtthata“housewife”wasanexcellentexampleofawoman,anda“policewoman”notsuchagreatexample.Thesamegradationsemergedintheirreal-timementalprocesses:Theypushedan“oddnumber”buttonmorequicklywhen“3”flashedonthescreenthanwhen“2,643”did.–Pinker,1999Thisisnottosaythatwordswithclearmeaningsorcategorieswithsharpboundariesdon’texistatall(e.g.triangles,grandmothersandoddnumbers)andthattryingtoclarifyvaguetermsisanutterwasteoftime.Butacknowledgingthatinmanycasesabsoluteprecisionisunattainableshouldmaketheprocessofclarificationmuchlessfrustrating,moreinformedandthereforemorefruitful.Regularandirregular[verb]formscoexistbutrequiredifferentcomputationalmechanisms[inthebrain]:symbolcombinationforregularforms,associativememoryforirregularforms.Thesamemaybetrueforclassicalandfamilyresemblancecategories.–Pinker,1999ComicextractedfromPinker,1999Family-resemblancecategoriesaremorecomplexthansimplefuzzycategoriesbecauseontopofbeingfuzzythey’remultidimensional.Theboundarybetweenbaldandnon-baldmaybefuzzybutitisunidimensional:theonlythingthatmakesyoumoreorlessbaldisnumberofhairs.“Birdiness”,however,ismuchmorecomplex.Therearemanyaspectsthatmightmakeananimalmoreorlessbird-like:“featheriness”,“beakiness”,“capacitytofly”,etc.Andit’snotclearwhatthe“minimumrequirements”areforeachofthesecharacteristicsinorderforustoconsiderananimalabird.Whenwelookatanimalstodayitmightseemthatallbirdshaveacommonessence,andthatthesimpledefinitionsfromourhighschoolbiologyclasscapturethemwellenough.Butstarttryingtodefinewhatthefirstbirdwasinthehistoryofanimalevolutionandyourealizethingsaremorecomplicatedthantheyseemed.SpeechactsOncewestartseeinglanguageasatoolusedtoplaydifferentgames,itbecomesnaturaltoask:whattypesofgamesarepeopleplayingoutthere?InhislectureseriesposthumouslypublishedasHowToDoThingsWithWords,J.L.Austinintroducestheconceptofa“performativeutterance”or“speechact”,asentencethatdoesnotdescribeor“constate”anyfact,butperformsanaction.Hisexamplesinclude:“Ido(takethiswomantobemylawfulweddedwife)”—asutteredinthecourseofthemarriageceremony.“InamethisshiptheQueenElizabeth”—asutteredwhensmashingthebottleagainstthestem.“Igiveandbequeathmywatchtomybrother”—asoccurringinawill.“Ibetyousixpenceitwillraintomorrow”Austindrawsadistinctionbetweenseveralaspectsofanutterance:Locutionarymeaning—theliteral,factualmeaningofthatstatement.Wheninterpretedassuch,astatementmaybetrueorfalse.Illocutionaryforce—theperformativeaspectofanutterance.Anillocutionaryactdoesn’thaveatruthdimension,butitcanbefelicitousorinfelicitous(i.e.successfulorunsuccessful).Perlocutionaryeffect—theeffectofthatspeechact(e.g.somebodypassingyouthesaltafteryouaskforit).Austinmentionsseveraltypesofspeechactsthroughouthislectures,including“orders”,“warnings”,“apologies”,“promises”,etc.Hegroupsmanyofthesetypesunderbroadercategories,butheisnotrigidabouthiscategorization,whichisprettyadhoc,andisn’tthefocusofhisanalysis.InATaxonomyOfIllocutionaryacts,however,Searletakestheroleofapropertaxonomistandgoesonanexpeditionaimingtocategorizethemaintypesofspeechactsthatcanbefoundinthewild.Hecomesbackwiththefollowinglist:Assertivescommitthespeakertothetruthoftheexpressedproposition(e.g.“Iamhomenow.”)Directivesintendtocausethehearertotakeaparticularaction(e.g.“Canyoupassmethesalt?”)Commissivescommitthespeakertosomefutureaction(e.g.“IpromiseI’llstopsmoking.”)Expressivesexpressthespeaker’sattitudesandemotionstowardstheproposition(e.g.“Congratulations!”)Declarationschangetherealityinaccordwiththepropositionofthedeclaration(e.g.“Inowsolemnlydeclareyouhusbandandwife.”)Searleseemstopresenthiscategorizationasfinalandcomprehensive.Butasinmostthingsinphilosophy,thisisahighlycontestedclaim.Iforonetendtodisagreethatitisevenpossibletoeverhaveafinal,comprehensivelistofspeechactcategories.Speechactcategoriesarecreatedbyus,notdiscovered.Differentcategoriesmaybecreatedadhocaslongasthey’reuseful.ApplyingthephilosophyoflanguageTherearemanymoreinterestingconceptsinthephilosophyoflanguage,butthisshouldbeenoughforastart.AsIapplythemtocontemporary,realpoliticaldiscussions,Iwillintroduceadditionalonesasneeded.Let’sstartwithafallacythatwillserveasabasisfordefiningotherfallacies,thenwecanproceedtosomeoftheslogansinthearticle’sfeaturedimage.DescriptivefallacyAustinwasanactivephilosopherduringthedeclineofanimportantmovementinphilosophycalledlogicalpositivism.Logicalpositivistslikedtodismissentireswathesofphilosophyasmeaninglessiftheydidn’tpasstheverificationtest,whichmaintainedthatinorderforastatementtobeconsideredmeaningful,itstruthvaluehadtobeempiricallyverifiable.Thiswasareactiontopreviousphilosophicalmovements(mainlyidealism)thataccordingtothemseemedtodealmostlywithobscure,unverifiable,mysticalnonsense.Somethinglikea19thcenturyversionofDeepakChopra’sworkor,asChomskywouldargue,evensomeofŽižek’s.Bythemid1950’s,however,itstartedtobecomeincreasinglyacceptedthat,althoughlogicalpositivismhaddone,inAustin’sownwords,“agreatdealofgood”,ithadgoneabittoofar.Inhislecturesaboutperformativeutterances,Austinintroduceswhathecallsthedescriptivefallacy.Thisfallacyiscommittedwhensomebodyinterpretsaperformativeutteranceasmerelydescriptive,subsequentlydismissingitasfalseornonsensewheninfactithasaveryimportantrole,it’sjustthatthisroleisnotsimplystatingfacts.Ifsomebodygoesonvacationafterastressfulperiodatworkand,astheyfinallylieontheirbeachchairintheirfavoriteresortwiththeirfavoritecocktailintheirhands,theysay“lifeisgood”,itwouldbeabsurdtosay“thisstatementismeaninglessbecauseitcannotbeempiricallyverified”.Clearlyitisanexpressionofastateofmindthatdoesn’treallyhaveafactualdimensionatall.What’simportanttoemphasizehere,however,isthatthosewhoattackspeechactsasfalseormeaninglessareasguiltyasthedescriptivefallacyasthosewhodefendtheirperformativeutterancesonfactualgrounds,whichisregrettablycommon.Peoplearenotusuallyawarethat,besideslabellingastatementas“true”or“false”,theycanalsolabelitas“purelyperformative,lackingfactualcontent”.Theperformativenatureoflanguageisnotsomethingpeopleareexplicitlyawareofingeneral.Asaconsequence,whenastatementisphrasedasfactualbutisconfusingandhardtograspasfactuallytrue,ourintuitivereactionistolabelitasfalse.Ontheotherhand,ifastatementbecomespartofouridentityasconsequenceofbeingusedasthesloganofamovementwestronglysupport,wefeeltemptedtodefenditasfactuallytrueeventhoughitmightbequiteplainlyfalseorfactuallymeaningless.AppealtonegativeconnotationAsI’veargued,althoughthecoinageofthedescriptionfallacywasareactiontothestrictverificationismofthelogicalpositivists,itcaneasilybeappliedtothereversesituationaswell.Itisnotonlythepeoplewhoheartheutteranceswhocancommitthefallacy,butthosewhoutterthemaswell.Theslogan“abortionismurder”isaperfectexampleofit.ItisafallacythatIliketocall“appealtonegativeconnotation”.TherationalistbloggerScottAlexanderdescribesasimilarfallacywhichhecallsthe“non-centralfallacy”,butIthinkmylabelismoreself-explanatory.Inthistypeoffallacy,astatementismadeasifit’sastatementoffact,wheninfactitismoreperformativethanfactual.Whensomebodysays“abortionismurder”theyarenotonlymakingadispassionatestatementoffact.Theyaremakingamoraljudgement.Theproblemisthat,regrettablyoften,theythemselvesdon’trealizeitthemselves.Languageislargelyperformativebynature,butitrequiresdirectedintellectualefforttobecomeawareofit.Mostpeoplehaven’tdonethiswork.Itiscommontophraseanaccusationasastatementoffact(e.g.“abortionismurder”),thentohavesomebodyobjecttoyouraccusationpointingouttohowit’sfactuallyinaccurate(aninstanceofthedescriptivefallacy),andthenforyoutodefendyourselfbydefendingthefactualvalidityofyourinitialstatement(anotherinstanceofthedescriptivefallacy).Wittgensteinthoughtmanyofthedebatesinphilosophywerearesultofmisusinglanguage.Ibelievemanyargumentsinlifearearesultofnotunderstandinghowweourselvesuselanguage.Andthesemisunderstandingsplagueeverything,fromourmostintimateinterpersonalrelationshipstoourpublicpoliticalarguments.Abortionisnotmurderliterally.Murderisalegaltermthatappliestointentional,premeditatedkillingofanaturalperson.Abortionmaybefairlydescribedaskilling,butthatisatechnicality.Killinginself-defenseandlawfulexecutionofdeath-rowconvictsarealsokilling,andsoissteppingoncockroachesforthatmatter.Butyoudon’tseepro-lifersdefendingthoselives.Whenanti-abortionactivistssay“abortionismurder”,theyareappealingtothenegativeconnotationoftheword“murder”.Whenweheartheword“murder”,ourassociativememoryisactivatedandwethinkofprototypicalimagesofmurders.Thesearenasty,bloody,andinvokearchetypalnarrativesinvolvinganevilvillainbutcheringahelplessvictim.Abortion,aperipheralornon-centralexample(henceScott’slabel“non-centralfallacy”)istherebyassociatedtoanimagerythatispromptedbyaprototypicalexample(anadultkillinganotherviolentlyagainsttheirwill).Thiswholementalprocessmaytriggersomepeopletoseeabortionasimmoral,andthatistheintention(fullyconsciousornot)ofpro-lifers.Ananalogouscasecanbemadeabout“meatismurder”.Legally,killingananimalisnotmurder.Perhapswhatvegansmeanisthatkillinganimalsisasimmoralasmurderingahuman,whichwouldbearatherstrongstatement,butatleastitwouldbedebatable.Unfortunately,however,thathashtagwouldbetoolong.“Taxationistheft”isthesame.If“theft”isdefinedsobroadlyas“takinganother’spropertyagainsttheirconsent”,thentakingbackastolengoodbyforceisalsotheft,andsoisforcingpeopletopayfordamagingyourpropertyorfiningpeopleforbreakinglaws.“Dairyisrape”isasimilarexample.Ifinsertingadeviceintoananimal’svaginawithouttheirexplicitconsentisrape,thencervicalscreeningofbabiesandartificialinseminationofprotectedspeciesarealsorape.Ofcoursenobodyisopposingthesethings.Onecouldsay“butthatisdonewiththeirbestinterestinmind,whiletheinseminationofdairycowsisnot”,andfairenough,that’savalidargumentyoucouldusetodefendthatdairyisimmoralwhiletheotheractivitiesarenot.Butitisnotanargumenttodefendthatdairyismorerapethantheotheractivities.Noneofthemarerape.Thedefinitionofrape,boththecoloquialandthelegalones,doesn’tsayanythingaboutbestinterest.Ifyourapeawomanbecauseacrazypsychopathpointedaguntoyourheadandsaidifyoudidn’tdoithe’ddoithimselfinamuchmoreviolentandpainfulway,you’dhaveherbestinterestinmindwhilerapingherbutitwouldstillberape.Icouldgivemoreexamples,butyougetthepoint.Thebottomlineis,whethersomethingisorisn’tcalledrape,murder,theft,etc,ismorallyirrelevant.Themorallyrelevantquestionis:doesthisactivitycauseavoidablesuffering?Isthereabetteralternative?The“sloganification”oflanguageItrytobeforgivingwhendefendersofacauseIsupportcommitthefallacyofappealtonegativeconnotation.ButIcan’tjustturnablindeyeandcondonethisattitudeasiftherewasnoproblemwithit.ThistypeofaccusatorycommunicationstrategyisoneofthereasonswhyIbelieveoursocietyissopoliticallypolarized.Intheageofhashtagactivism,everythingisaslogan.Itisbecomingincreasinglydifficulttousefactuallanguage.BraziliancolumnistJulianaBorgesrecentlypostedonInstagramthat“theclaimthatblackpeoplecommitmorecrimesandaremoredangerousthanwhitesisRACISM”.ButitisfactuallytruethatblackscommitmoreviolentcrimesthanwhitesintheUS,whereeventhoughtheycompose13%ofthepopulationtheyareresponsibleforover50%ofmurders,anditalsoseemstobetrueinBrazil,eventhoughtheboundarybetweenblackandwhiteismuchfuzzierandthedatamuchmorescarceinthelattercountry.Coulditberacisttosimplystatefacts?Formany,theanswerisobvious:ofcoursenot.Andwhentheyareaccusedofracismforstatingfacts,theyareoutraged.Isympathizewiththesepeople,andIalsofeelwrongedwhenI’maccusedofbigotryforsimplystatingfacts.Butasapragmatist,insteadofstrikingbackandaccusingtheotherpersonofacrazyirrational“leftard”,ItrytounderstandwhattheyhearwhenIstatethosefacts.AndwhatIbelievetheyhearis:“I’mnotonyourteam,Idon’tsupportyourcause”.Thatis,inAustinterms,theperlocutionaryforce(theeffect)ofmyutterance.Thisis,Ibelieve,thereasonwhypeoplegetfiredforsayingthingsthatseemsoinnocuousatfacevaluesuchas“alllivesmatter”.Ofcoursealllivesmatter.MostBLMactivistsagreewiththat.Buttosaythisinthemidstofaracialcrisisisconsideredbymanyanactof“defianceagainsttheforcesofgood”.Anactthattheythinkmustbepunished.Thereismuchtobesaidaboutlanguageandracism,butthisisadiscussionforadedicatedarticle.SometimesIbelievethisisnotonlyhowstatementsareperceived,buttosomeextentalsohowtheyareintended.Virtuesignallingissomethingwealldo,regardlessofourpolitics.“Darkwebintellectual”typesmaywanttoshowhowrationalandcentristtheyareandhowthey’renotafraidofstatingplainfacts,whichmightpromptthemtobegratuitouslytactlessandsaytruthsthataretotallyuncalledforinthatcontextandthereforeacquireadiscriminatoryconnotationintheeyesofmany.Ontheotherhand,radicalleftistswhowanttoshowhowwoketheyarecanbemisledintobelievingcertainfalsehoodsjustbecausetheideaofdisagreeingwithitconjuresupunpleasantprototypicalexamplesofpeoplewhodisagreewithit,suchasright-wingconservatives,andsincetheydon’twanttoassociatewiththem,theyassumethatfalsehoodmustbetrue.However,asIhavearguedbefore,ourinabilitytotellfactfromfictioniscostly.AndIwoulddaresaythatitismoredetrimentaltoprogressivesthanconservatives,becauseasaprogressiveItrulybelievethefactsareonourside.Languageiscomplex.Astatementcanalwaysbeinterpretedinmanyways.Intheageofsocialmedia,whereatweetcanbereadbymillionsofpeople,itisalwayspossiblethatsomebodywillreadamaliciousinsinuationintoangenuinelywellintendedcomment.Becauseofthis,itisoftenhelpfultosaywhatyoudon’tmean.Ofcourse,nomatterhowmucheffortwemake,somebodymightalwaysattackus.Thisisarealitywehavetosimplycometotermswith.Butitdoesn’tmeanweshouldn’ttry.WhenIsayblackpeoplecommitmoreviolentcrimesthanwhites,forexample,I’mnotsayingthat“itisnosurprisethepoliceisharsheronthem,theyhaditcoming”,assomemightreadit.Isimplymeanthisisafactweshouldn’tlieaboutifwewanttoimprovetheworld.Afterall,toimprovetheworldwemustfirstbeabletoagreethatthecurrentsituationisbad,andwecannotdothatwithoutfirstagreeingonwhatthecurrentsituationis.Onlyafterweshareanunderstandingofhowandinwhatwaysthecurrentsituationisbadcanwestartworkingtoeffectivelyimproveit.Blackcommunitieshavebeenhistoricallyoppressed,marginalizedanddeprivedofbasicservicessuchashealth,educationandsafetyforcenturies.Itwouldbeamiracleifthelevelofviolenceinthesecommunitieswasn’thigherthaninprivilegedandwealthywhitecommunities.Peoplewhofinditracisttoacknowledgethesefactsseemtoassumethattheonlycauseofviolenceisaninnateviolentessence.Thatissimplynottrue.Thereisaplethoraoffactorsthatcontributetoviolentbehavior.Innatebiologicalpredispositionsarejustasmallfractionofthem,andthereisnoevidencethattheseinnatetraitsaremorecommoninoneracethananother.There’splentyofevidence,however,thatthesocialconditionsunderwhichmostpeopleofcolorareraisedareconducivetoviolentbehavior.AlthoughIfirmlysupportfactuallanguage,wesimplycannotreasonablyexpecteverybodytobecomeemotionlessrobotsovernight.AsmuchasImaytrytopracticewhatIpreachIcannotsayIalwayssucceed(orevenmostlysucceed).ManytimesIgetangryandsaysomethingpassive-aggressive.Iamhuman.ButeventhoughIagreethatitismyresponsibilitytotrytomakemyselfunderstood,itisalsotheresponsibilityofeverybodyelsetomakethemselvesunderstood,andthefirststepistounderstandwhattheyareactuallytryingtoexpresswhentheyusetheseslogans,andthentryingtoconveyitinmorepreciselanguageinsteadoffallingvictimtothedescriptivefallacyandappealingtothemostconvolutedargumentstoinsistthat“dairyreallyisrape”or“abortionreallyismurder”.WEAVErecentlypostedthefollowingimageonsocialmedia:There’snosuchthing[asanunderagewoman].An“underagewoman”isachild![Thereisnosuchthingasachildprostitute.]Childrencan’tconsent.Theyare“rapevictims”or“sexualassaultsurvivors”.[Thereisnosuchthingassexwithminor.]It’srape.Callitrape.[Non-consensualsexis]RAPE.Rapistsdon’tdeservepolitenessandvictimsdeservevalidationforwhatthey’vebeenthrough.Thisisaperfectexampleofperformativelanguageposingasfactual.Nobodyreferstoa17yearoldasachildinordinarylanguageunlessthey’retryingtobecondescendingtowardsthem.Thelegalsystemdoesn’townlanguage,andjournalistswriteforthegeneralpopulation,notlegalprofessionals.Itmaybetrueinsomejurisdictionsthatachildisanybodybelow18yearsold,butnobodythinksofa17yearoldwhentheyheartheword“child”.Aprototypicalexampleofachildissomebodybelowtheageof13,asaGoogleimagesearchwillreveal.LexicoDictionary(PoweredbyOxford)[child]1.Ayounghumanbeingbelowtheageofpubertyorbelowthelegalageofmajority.Childrencan’tconsent?Well,legallypeoplebelowtheageofconsentcannotconsentbydefinition.Butshouldweallspeaklegalesenow?Whatgoodwoulditdoforustoabandonthenuanceofnaturallanguageinfavorofthesharpboundariesoflegalvocabulary?Evenifweassume(forthesakeoftheargument)thatitisimmoralfora30yearoldmantohavesexwithawilling16yearoldgirl(whichisperfectlylegalinvirtuallyallofEurope),itwouldbeabsurdtosuggestthatthisisexactlyasbadasrapinga16yearoldgirlwhoisresisting.Naturallanguageallowsustomakethisdistinction.Again,callingsomething“rape”doesn’tmakeitmoreimmoral.Whatmakesoneactmoreimmoralthananotherisitstendencytoproducemoreavoidableandpointlesssuffering.Nowyoumaysay“butpeopleneedtobemoreawarethatconsentisimportantandthatchildabuseisbad”.Well,sure.Butisthisreallythemosteffectiveway?Bymakingfactuallyfalseclaims?Progressivesarethefirsttopointoutwhenconservativesweaponizelanguageintheirfavor.Isn’tithypocriticaltodothesamewhenitservesus?Allpoliticaldebatesboildowntomoralvalues,andmoralityiscomplicated.Debatingconstructivelyaboutethicsrequiresnuance.Pretendingthingsaresimplewhentheyarenotdoesn’tdousanygood.Empathizersvs.systemizersAccordingtooneoftheleadingautismresearchers,SimonBaron-Cohen,thereareinfacttwospectra,twodimensionsonwhichwecanplaceeachperson:empathizingandsystemizing.Empathizingis“thedrivetoidentifyanotherperson’semotionsandthoughts,andtorespondtothesewithanappropriateemotion.”Ifyoupreferfictiontononfiction,orifyouoftenenjoyconversationsaboutpeopleyoudon’tknow,youareprobablyaboveaverageonempathizing.Systemizingis“thedrivetoanalysethevariablesinasystem,toderivetheunderlyingrulesthatgovernthebehaviourofthesystem.”Ifyouaregoodatreadingmapsandinstructionmanuals,orifyouenjoyfiguringouthowmachineswork,youareprobablyaboveaverageonsystemizing.–Haidt,2012Weallknowthestereotypethatsomepeoplearemoreemotional,artsy,empathetic,sociable,intense,whileothersarecold,rational,mathematical,nerdy,systematic,introverted,etc.Obviouslyhumansarecomplexandnobodyfitsperfectlyinonestereotypeoranother,butstilltheyareveryrecognizabletomostofus.Typicallythefirstclusterofcharacteristicsisassociatedtowomen,whilethesecondisassociatedtomen.Whetherthisgenderdifferenceismorestronglydeterminedbynurtureornatureisacontroversialdebatethat’soutofthescopeofthisarticle,butthattodaythesetraitsaredistributedunevenlybetweenthegendersisIwouldsayquiteuncontroversial.Asastraightcismalewithadegreeincomputerengineeringwhousedtobecalled“autistic”inhighschoolandnowstudiesanalyticratherthancontinentalphilosophy,Ithinkit’snomysterywhereinthatspectrumIfit.Whileforsomethephilosophyofperformativelanguagemayseemlikeoveranalyzingsomethingobviousthatthey’realwaysknown,forpeoplelikemehavingatheoreticalframeworktomakesenseofwhatpeoplesaycanbeextremelyhelpful.However,Iwouldn’tbetooquicktoassumethatempathizersareinnatelybetterincommunicating.AsPaulBloomarguesinAgainstEmpathy:TheCaseforRationalCompassion,althoughempathycanmakeusfeelcompassion,itcanalsomakeusfeelangerandothernegativeemotionsmoreintensely.Intherationalist/atheistcommunitymanyprogressivesfeelalienatedfromtheprogressivecommunitybecauseeventhoughourvaluesaremostlyaligned,wesimplycannotstatesimpletruthswithouthavingpeoplebombarduswithaccusationsofbigotry.ThisisillustratedperfectlybyRichardDawkins’infamoustweetscomparingdifferentinstancesofrape.SinceIstartedstudyingthephilosophyalanguageabitmoredeeply,itstartedtobecomeincreasinglycleartomethatsomepeoplearemoreperformativeintheiruseoflanguagewhileothersaremorefactual.Itcanbehard,believeme,forasystemizertounderstandthatasimplestatementoffactcantriggersuchrageinotherpeoplebecauseofthewaytheyperceivethatstatementasapoliticalact.Thisisnotamomentinhistoryinwhichprogressivescanaffordtobefragmentedlikethis.Weneedtostopaccusingeachotherandlearntocommunicatenonviolently.Sohowcanwedothis?CommunicatingbetterMarshallRosenberghasmanyusefulthingstosayaboutnonviolentcommunication,andIthinkanybodywhogetsinvolvedinpoliticaldebatesshouldlearnhistechniques.Here,however,Iaminterestedinsolvingaparticularphilosophicalproblem:mistakingperformativelanguageforfactualandviceversa.Whensomebodysayssomethinglike“blackscommitmorecrimesthanwhites”andyourmindisfilledwithrageandanurgetocallthemracist,stopforasecondandaskyourself:whatifitistrue?Woulditmakeitracisttosayit?Isn’titperhapsthewayorthecontextinwhichtheysaiditthatmadeyoufeeltheyimpliedsomethingracist?Ifthatisthecase,theninsteadofdesperatelygraspingforargumentstodefendtheoppositefactualclaim,namelythatblacksdonotcommitmorecrimesthanwhites,youcanactuallycriticizethemforstatingthatfactinaninappropriatecontextthatimpliessomethingimmoral,orforexpressingthemselvesinanunnecessarilyprovocativetonethatisnotconducivetocivilizeddebate.Sometimestherageisjustified.Wejustfailtoseethatwhattriggereditwasthetoneortheimplicationandnotthefactualstatementitself.Itisoffundamentalimportanceforustotrainourselvestobecomeawareofthis,orpublicdebatewilldeterioratetothepointthatconversationwon’tbeatoolwecanuseanymoreandviolencewillbetheonlythingwecanresortto.Butwhatifwe’retheoneswhomakeadispassionatestatementoffactandarebombardedwithaccusations?Itwouldbeveryeasytosay“factsdon’tcareaboutyourfeelings”,butwhatisourgoalhere?Dowewanttoliveinaworldinwhichpeoplecanworktogetherforabetterfuture?Orisitmoreimportanttoinsultpeopleoutofsheerretribution?Whenlogicalpositivistslabelledastatementasunverifiable,theyimmediatelydismisseditasmeaninglessnonsense,uninterestingtophilosophy.However,theyfailedtoseethatthepeopleutteringthosestatementsweresimplyplayinganotherlanguage-game.Nowthatweknowaboutlanguage-gamesandtheperformativenatureoflanguage,whensomebodysayssomethingthatisblatantlyfalseinafactualsense,weshouldfirstaskourselvesifthey’rereallyplayingthe“assertionoffactsgame”.Mostoften,they’renot,soitwouldbepointlesstoattackthefactualaccuracyoftheirstatement.Ibelieveitismoreconstructivetotrytomakethemawareoftheperformativenatureoftheirownutterance.Thiscanoftenbedonebytryingto“translate”theperformativeutterance,withtheirhelp,toanempiricalone.Here,themethodofverificationcomesinhandy.Recentlyavery“woke”friendaccusedmeofbeing“condescending”onaFacebookthread.Whatdoesthismean?Howcanweverifyifthisistrueornot?Well,itdependsonwhatitmeans.Ifwhatismeantisthat“Ifeelpatronized”,thenithasalreadybeenverifiedbydirectexperience(orasRussellwouldsay,byacquaintance).Ifwhatisbeingmeantisthat“Ibelievemostpeopleinourculturewouldfeelpatronizedifyoutalkedtothemlikethat”,thenwe’dhavetodoasurveytocheckifthisisreallythecase.Needlesstosay,itisofteninfeasibletoactuallytryandverifyastatementinpractice.Butimagininghowwecouldpotentiallydoitintheoryhelpusclarifywhatweactuallymeantbysayingit.Ifourinterlocutorrejectstheaboveinterpretations,andsaysinsteadthatwearebeingcondescendinginsomeobjective,absolutesense,forexample,thenindeedthisisnotverifiableandIdon’tknowwhatitmeans.Icanonlyinterpretitasapurelyperformative“fuckyou”maskedwithpseudo-factuallanguage.Butitisimportanttonotethatitisnotonly“irrationallywoke”peoplewhogetconfusedabouttheirownuseoflanguage.Wealldo.Almostalllanguagehasaperformativedimensiontosomeextent.Eventhemostbanalexample,like“thatguyisdumb”turnsoutnottobereallypurelyfactualifyouthinkofhowit’sactuallyused.Peoplenevercallsomebodytheytrulylike“dumb”,nomatterhowintellectuallylimitedtheymaybe.Sure,it’snotexactlyflatteringtobecalledeither“dumb”or“intellectuallylimited”,butanybodywhoisnotacompletesociopathunderstandthatthis“politicalcorrectness”or“politeness”issomethingwedonaturallywhenwecareaboutpeople.Whenwesaysomebodyis“dumb”or“stupid”,that’snotapurestatementoffact.Itisanattack.Manypeoplewhoposeascalm,rational,andcommittedtofacts,areinfactquiteperformativeintheiruseoflanguage.BenShapiroisperhapsthebestexample.Insistingtorefertoatranswomanasamanisnotacommitmenttofacts,itisarefusaltocomplywithwhatthey’reaskingfor.ThewayIseeit,itisadefensivereactionbysomebodywhofeelsbulliedbythetranscommunity.Indeed,somepeopleintheLGBT+communitycanbequiteaggressiveintheircommunicationstyle,promptingthemoresensitiveamongustoreactdefensively.Nobodylikestodothingsbecausethey’reforcedto.Butinsteadofadmittingthis,Benpreferstoclothehisdiscourseinpseudo-factuallanguage,appealingtoscientificnotionsofbiologicalsex,whichinturnpromptssomeradicalprogressivestorejectthescienceofsex,whichisproblematicandunnecessary.Buttosuggestthatday-to-daylanguageshouldbereplacedwithscientificterminologyisaswrongassuggestingthatitshouldbereplacedwithlegallanguage.Alanguageisalivingorganism,itcanchangeandadapttonewsituations.Ifweagreethat“man”referstopeoplewhoconformtoacertainstereotypeofmasculinebehaviorcloselyenough,thenthat’swhattheword“man”willmean.Ofcourse,certainlinguisticchangesarehard.Ifwewant“man”tomean“anybodywhosaystheyidentifyasaman”,thegapbetweenthisuseandthecurrentuseofthewordissogreatthatitmightbeunsurmountable.Itmaynotbeimpossible,butitisextremelyhardtoartificiallyengineernaturallanguagetoconformtoourideologicalpreferences.IfJasonMomoasaidthatfromnowonhewantstobecalledawoman(withoutchanginghislooks),itwouldbehardformostofustoconform.Butifovernightwesomehowmanagedtoconvincetheworldtouselanguagelikethis,thenitwouldbemeaninglesstosay“peoplemaycallhimawomanbutheisreallyaman”.Thiswouldbelikesaying“peoplemaynotcallthat16yearoldachildbutsheisachild”orasking“everybodycallsthisatable,butisitreallyatable?Orisitjustthenameweuseforit?”.Thistypeofthinkingisessentialisticandmetaphysical.Itisaninstanceofmetaphoricalthinkinggonetoofar.Atabledoesn’thavealittletablesoulinsideitthatwillstaythereevenifwestopcallingitatable.Male,female,child,andtablearenotnaturalkinds.Abiologicalmanisn’tbornwithanimmutablemalegenderessenceinsidehim.Hemaychangethegenderhedisplaysatanypointinhislifeandifourlanguagechangestoaccommodatethat,wehavenobasistosay“butheisreallyaman”,unlesswespecifythatwemean“biologicallymale”,whichmayormaynotbesomethingrelevanttopointout.AnotherrelevantconceptworthpointingoutistheGriceancooperativeprinciple.PaulGricewasaphilosopherwhostudiedthepragmaticsoflanguage.Accordingtohim,whenweengageinsuccessfulcommunication,werespectfourconversationalmaxims:Themaximofquality—wesaywhatwegenuinelybelieveistruebasedonadequateevidence.Themaximofquantity—wemakeourcontributionasinformativeaspossible,butonlyasinformativeasitisrequiredforthepurposeoftheexchange.Maximofrelation/relevance—wedon’tsaythingsthatarecompletelyirrelevant(althoughGriceacknowledgesthatininformalconversationsthismaximisfrequentlyviolatedintheprocessofchangingsubjects).Maximofmanner—wespeakclearlyandsuccinctly,avoidingobscureorvaguetermsandunnecessaryprolixity.Ifyou’retalkingtoadoctorwhoneedstoknowcertaininformationaboutthepatient,itmaybeperfectlyreasonabletomentiontheirbiologicalsex.Towithholdrelevantinformationwouldbeaviolationoftheprincipleofquantity.Ifyou’renotplayingthemedicinegame,however,thenbyremindingatranspersonthattheirbiologicalsexdoesn’tcorrespondtotheirgenderidentityyou’reviolatingthemaximofrelevance,andessentiallybeingatransphobicprick.ConclusionWetendtoliveourlivesbasedonthebackgroundassumptionthatlanguageisatooltoassertfacts,andthatthisisthelanguagegamewe’replayingwhenwedebatecontroversialpoliticalissues.However,languageisoftenperformative.Weconspicuouslydisplayloyaltytoourtribeandperceiveothersasdisplayinghostilitytowardsours.Weareoftennotconsciousofthisbecauseweareemotional,impulsive,retributive,welackself-awarenessandtherelevantconceptualtoolstobetterunderstandourownuseoflanguage.Thisisnormal,ashumans,weareallvictimsoftheintrospectionillusion,oftenassumingweknowwhywedowhatwedowhendeepdownwereallydon’t.Itispossible,however,touselanguagemoreeffectivelyifweunderstandourselvesbetter.IhopeinthisarticleIhavemanagedtointroduceusefulandinsightfulideasthatcanhelpuscommunicatemoreeffectivelyandworkcooperativelytowardsalesspolarizedworldinwhichthere’slesspointlesssufferingandmorejoyandjustice.--1MorefromHumanistVoicesOfficialSecular-HumanistpublicationbyHumanistVoicesReadmorefromHumanistVoicesAboutHelpTermsPrivacyGettheMediumappGetstartedArielPontes286FollowersPhilosophy,science,secularhumanism,effectivealtruism.ghostlessmachine.comFollowMorefromMediumTheFledgerinTheFledgerCovidandcoercion:HowthelockdownnarrativeabusedChristianmoralsMaeBrandoLivingAgainstHerGrain:HeteronormativeSpaceinCarolRosesMediainRosesAlexandraKollontai:WomenFightersintheDaysoftheGreatOctoberRevolutionJohnWHeffernanThereisno“quickfix”onthepathtomeaningfulsystemicchangeHelpStatusWritersBlogCareersPrivacyTermsAboutKnowable