Language Matters

Last updated on: December 22, 2017 at 4:07 pm by Chase Padusniak

Language Matters 2017-12-22T16:07:00-04:00 Chase Padusniak

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I would be remiss (or at least very unlike myself) if I didn’t throw in a little Lacan (or in this case, Žižek, a Lacanian), for whom language is central to how the world works:

We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom. (Welcome to the Desert of the Real)

The Medium here is not the message, quite the opposite: the very medium that we use- the universal intersubjectivity of language-undermines the message. (Less Than Nothing)

In the latter quote, his point goes even a bit further than I have: that language, insofar as it brings with it all sorts of unintended connotations and imprecisions, basically “gets in the way.”

One could cite Heidegger and Gadamer on technology and science respectively to push home the point: how we speak limits our perspectives; the languages we inherit define the terms we put to use.

I haven’t meant to seem glib or condescending. There are some people who might simply refuse to acknowledge that anything beyond ill-defined common sense ought to shape the language we use. In a way, this argument boils down to “if it already exists in language, it’s good enough.”

Most opponents of some of our current cultural turn, however, might be more likely to take an Orwellian tack: the policing of language is itself a form of thought policing. They might say “of course language matters! That’s why I’m standing up for it!” This seems reasonable enough, except that it risks falling into precisely the fallacy outline above: that how we speak is, in some fundamental sense, already correct.

Let me be plain: I recognize that there are lots of, from my perspective anyway, bad or misguided changes to language. I work in academia, the notorious home of jargon. I can’t say I see much good in the linguistic tinkering of certain Swedish Christians. There are good and bad ways to think and enact linguistic (and thus broader) change. But too often all change is resisted as necessarily horrid. The term “microaggressions” is used to dismiss what might actually be the residual effects of this country’s storied history of slavery (e.g. a person crossing the street because a young, black man is on the same side of the sidewalk. One might chock this up to a feeling of insecurity, of possible danger. But then one could ask why such a person, what he was wearing, etc., that is, what he represents. This could be said, for that person, to read as “dangerous.” The legacy of Reconstruction and the fact of generational poverty might come up, leading to thoughts about how words like, say, “thug,” do exert some influence on how we conceive of black poverty). A more banal (and, frankly, sillier) example might be atheists calling God a sort of “magic sky fairy.” Anyone who understands anything beyond the most base theism can see that this is a ludicrous accusation, and yet if it gets repeated enough, it will surely affect how people conceive of believers. We put a good deal of effort into attacking such language: why not give a hearing to those who want us to understand why specific groups might feel attacked by x, y, or z term?

To end, I think it best to clarify. Here I have not been interested in legal questions. My interest has merely been to demonstrate that if people (and here I address many “conservatives”) admit language matters, they ought to give a better hearing to how and why others feel it does. Further, I’d like to be clear that many groups do go too far; I don’t intend to endorse every linguistic change ever proffered. But I do intend to highlight the inescapability of language and why more of us ought to be taking it seriously.

Perhaps if we reframed many of our debates around freedom of speech as debates about language and its meaningfulness in shaping personal and social views, we’d be a step closer to getting somewhere (it’s clear enough to me that “free speech” means far too many different things to different people). The legal and political questions might arrive a bit easier if we actually recognized what we all already agree on, in a sense, what we’re fighting for and what’s worth keeping in mind when addressing an “opponent”: language matters.

Previous Post

December 12, 2017

Is Love Nice?

Next Post

December 25, 2017 Christos Razdajetsja!

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Academia Culture Politics Reviews Theology Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 July 2021 December 2020 November 2020 July 2020 May 2020 April 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 August 2019 July 2019 April 2019 March 2019 December 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the father of King Solomon?

Select your answer to see how you score.

David Samuel Jonathan Saul