To me the signature on a legal document (marriage contract) is as much a performative and as binding as the words uttered in a formal ceremony. The context of the performative is different, so these are what raise issues, not its linguistic analysis.
I hesitate to comment on the issues and argument, but I am wondering about the "levels of abstraction." In what sense are these levels? Is this some sort of philosophical delineation from some school of thought? It seems to me that imagination corresponds to that world of the dreams where associations of ideas are revealed but where the mind is powerless to give them coherent details. I think the inherent vagueness of ideas is formed by concepts that we inherit from the traditions of our society and culture. These are expressed in the forms of language. I would think that even reality cannot be expressed unless formulated in terms of the concepts given by some language, whether natural (human) or artificial (mathematical). At every "level" the concepts, the abstractions are slippery and difficult to pin down. Attempts to lend them concreteness (reality?) seem generally to be in terms of each other (on the same "level"?). Then when mathematical languages (legal languages, etc.) are brought into the mix, they bring along baggage that some would rather choose to ignore.
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of O'Sullivan, Brian P
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 5:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Grammar Makes a Semantic Argument
Isn't "I do" an example of performative, rather than constative, language? The words "I do," spoken as part of a wedding ceremony, are arguably not just "a sign of that commitment" but a verbal action ratifying that commitment and establishing it as a matter of convention and of religious and/or civil law. As Scott says, you can have the commitment without the act of marriage--but it may be hard or impossible to get social and legal recognition of the commitment without that verbal action.
Scott says "it's even more far-fetched to say denying the pursuit of one avenue of self-development is a denial of the right to pursue happiness." I may be missing his point, but here's what I'm wondering: If no one particular way of pursing happiness is protected, how can the general right to the pursuit of happiness be protected? What if someone finds every "avenue" blocked, and what if that person is told each time, "pursue happiness some other way"? At what point do we say that the right to the pursuit of happiness has been denied?
Scott also says that "there is nothing to prevent same-sex couples from marrying each other in the eyes of their families and friends." This should be true, but I'm afraid that it isn't always so. I know a gay man whose family has come a long way in accepting his relationship with his partner, but I don't think all the members of the family put his relationship on the same level as legal marriage. If he were legally married, I do think it would make some difference in the way his family sees his commitment. Perhaps this helps to make Gregg's point, or a point related to Gregg's--language doesn't just signify reality, but, in many ways, shapes it.
Gregg, congratulations on your step-daughter's marriage!
Brian
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar on behalf of Gregg Heacock
Sent: Wed 10/29/2008 5:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Grammar Makes a Semantic Argument
Scott,
Thank you for taking the time to point out the questionable aspects of my piece. Let me review each one. While I accept your logic on the surface, I believe something is going on below the surface of the words that you might have dismissed.
You, first, make a distinction between a commitment and a sign of a commitment. Certainly, people can get married for certain tax advantages (something that those who regard marriage between a man and a woman as being automatically sacred while those between same-sex couples could never be fail to realize). But, in that marriage is a legally binding agreement, carrying with it all the economic responsibilities and consequences that come with it, marriage is a hand-cuff situation in which the sign of the thing is taken as proof of the thing itself.
Please understand that no one is ready for marriage, just as no one is ready to become president. Just like being a teacher, readiness is acquired on the job. So it is with commitment. One can be legally committed before becoming personally committed. Here we might look to Nathaniel Hawthorne, Stephen Crane, or Alice Walker to explore the relationship of a sign to the thing itself. The meaning of the scarlet letter "A' changes Hester Prynne just as she changes the meaning of the letter. The red badge of courage Henry Fielding wears changes the person Henry is. The negative scarification of Celie becomes something positive that identifies her. The logic of character and of the human heart must be considered when measuring how accurate we are being with our words.
You have misinterpreted my words when you say that I claim "that same-sex couples cannot 'develop themselves more fully as human beings.'" Obviously, people can develop themselves in many ways. But I would claim that marriage does, at least according to my experience and the experience of many, change the relationship. And, as one commits and submits to those changes, one changes oneself. I would imagine that by committing ourselves to anything and by submitting to the requirements entailed by such commitment, we develop ourselves as human beings.
To connect this argument with civil rights, we could say that a person does not have to eat in a particular place in order to get a good meal. But, if businesses have been given a public franchise, the contract binds them to serve those who have given them the right to operate. We cannot force churches to sanctify same-sex marriage because we have separated church from state. But, unless we have separated state from state, we should be so bound.
As for equating those who oppose same-sex marriage with such a figure as John Wilkes Booth, I think you are stretching a point to say that making a comparison is the same as equating. In both cases, we have people who believe so strongly in their own point of view that they act in ways that might have consequences other than those intended. Lincoln would have been far more generous to the South. And the struggle over race might not have become the defining struggle of our nation's creed. I am also claiming that marriage is a civil right and that by denying people this right, those who oppose same-sex marriage will be elevating those they oppose to a higher moral position. Just as white children rebelled against the racism of their past, so it might be that this and the next generation will rebel against of prejudice of those who would exclude other citizens from the legal covenants that should belong to all.
Beyond all of that, Scott, you have seemingly been confused by what I thought was my main offering: the notion that our language is structured according to levels of abstraction-reality, imagination, and conceptualization. As we come to understand this, we are better able to see the usefulness of grammar beyond simple correctness of expression. Now that you have grappled with these other ideas, I would like to see what you have to say about the relationship of grammar, rhetoric, and logic-how words relate to each other, how words relate to ideas, and how ideas relate to each other. They seem to overlap as they give strength to each other in expressing how we experience the world.
Best regards,
Gregg
On Oct 29, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Scott Woods wrote:
I'm not really clear about the grammar and semantics point, but there are several fallacious, or at least questionable, arguments made in this piece. The first is a confusion between the thing, commitment in a relationship, and a sign of that commitment, marriage. There is little to support the claim that if one cannot have a sign, then one cannot have the thing. The contrary is clearly more likely. It is a bit far-fetched and demeaning to say that same-sex couples cannot "develop themselves more fully as human beings." It is even more far-fetched to say denying the pursuit of one avenue of self-development is a denial of the right to pursue happiness. Further, there is nothing to prevent same-sex couples from marrying each other in the eyes of their families and friends. This would fulfill the same end regarding commitment as being married in the eyes of the state. I care little what the state thinks; I care greatly what my family and friends think. Also, to claim that same-sex couples cannot commit themselves fully, and so cannot become "real" seems outrageous and unsubstantiated. Finally, tit compares those who want to maintain the status quo regarding marriage to those who wanted to maintain the status quo regarding slavery. It claims that those who want to define a legal relationship through the proposition system by direct recourse to the people--instead of letting the courts decide the issue against the will of the people--are basically the same in motives and character as those who would murder their President and wage war on their country. This is really an ad hominem attack on motives designed to shut down discussion and de-legitimize any opposition.
Scott Woods
--the the rFrom: Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Grammar Makes a Semantic Argument
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 7:36 AM
I am taking a risk in sending you an opinion piece on a subject not directly related to grammar. I do this, not to persuade you. Rather, I do this to show how grammar might reveal certain aspects of our thinking that words on their own may not convey. Underlying both syntax and semantics is a philosophical understanding of the world that takes us from concept to reality. Grammar guides us on that journey. The piece I have written is about a California Proposition that seeks to ban same-sex marriage in that state. Again, my purpose is not to sway your opinion on that subject. I know that would not be appropriate on this site. But, I do think it fair to share an argument based on grammar and what it reveals about the world it shapes into sentences.
Rites, Rights, and Privilege
by Gregg Heacock
The night after my step-daughter married, I realized certain truths about family and personal development that have not been addressed in the debate over California's Proposition 8, which says: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." People have correctly attacked Proposition 8 as an attack on civil rights. But, its errors are more profound than that. Because the rite of marriage both signifies and codifies the commencement of a life based on commitment, it provides people an opportunity to develop themselves more fully as human beings. That's what makes Proposition 8 is an attack not only on marriage but also on our inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Like any other attack on our civil rights, Proposition 8 would eliminate a right that unites us and replace it with a privilege that divides us.
Maybe we are too ambivalent about the importance of marriage to see the threat for what it is. Not everyone is pleased with this tie that binds. When asked, "If a man says something in a forest and his wife isn't there to hear him, is he still wrong?" some men will say that he is wrong even if he says nothing. They see that worry rules the household and that any attempt to eliminate worries would throw off the balance of power that the story of the Garden of Eden may have been warning us about. Given that, Proposition 8 would be granting same-sex couples a special right. It would give them the right never to have to commit to a relationship that could diminish their sense of self rather than transform it. But, this view of marriage seems distorted to me since my daughter's marriage. I see the importance of submitting to obligations greater than my own immediate wants. In the self-discipline that must be exercised to commit oneself to others, I see the development of the capacity to deal with what others might see as drudgery.
Marriage is important, not in and of itself, but it how it relates to our commitment to other aspects of our lives. As a retired English teacher, let me share a truth that is hidden by the nature of our language. Verb forms have three states just like matter, which can exist as a gas, liquid, or solid. But the base verb remains the same, making it difficult to see the changes that occur as we move from conceiving an idea, to testing it, to realizing it as part of our lives.
Consider the infinitive "to love." As a Platonic ideal, it is boundless. Add sex, and it becomes finite. Sex leads to expectations and disappointments, jealousy, anger, and, even, hate. No wonder Plato thought that we could only know these qualities in an ideal state-the same conceptual state in which we know the properties of circles and squares. For Plato, the ideal was real.
But, for most of us, we travel an Imaginary path, called romance, speculating on the probable consequences of various actions. With the help of auxiliary verbs, we ask ourselves, "If I spend money on her and show some interest in her, would she go out with me again?" "If I invite him to my bed, will he respect me in the morning?" "If I were to date others, would he continue to ask me out?"
For all our belief in the power of our Romantic machinations to make things real, they do no more than bring us to the altar. It is only by saying, "I do," that we truly alter our situation, for it is doing that makes things real. "Having done it," we possess something that will change our very "being." Marriage grounds love in commitment. It is because of this that marriage signifies a stage of human development.
Like running a marathon, marriage may not be for everyone. And, there are other ways for people to develop themselves. But, life demands that we commit ourselves to what we want, submit to its requirements, and risk investment our time and emotion: otherwise, we deny ourselves the benefits that come with being real.
Denying same-sex couples the right to marry denies them these real returns. Parents don't celebrate when they hear that their son is shacking up with his girlfriend. The same could be said of becoming domestic partners. Of course, denying same-sex couples the right of marriage has forced us to recognize other covenants; thus, corporations, to ensure that they are on the right side of the law, have often granted medical and other benefits to same-sex partners of their employees. It must be said that, since same-sex couples in California have been allowed to marry, these domestic-partner benefits often have been taken away. Marriage changes things for everyone. It's serious business.
What supporters of Proposition 8 want is what many Southerners wanted at the end of the Civil War-to hold onto their privileged state. When Lincoln declared that all former slaves should have the rights of citizenship, John Wilkes Booth vowed, "That is the last speech he will ever make." Unfortunately, killing Lincoln only increased the problems faced by the South and heightened the conflict over civil rights so that we have been held in its thrall for over 150 years. Supporters of Proposition 8 need to see that by restricting the rite of marriage, they would change a right that unites us into a privilege that divides us.
Some privileges are fine. Seeing my step-daughter marry forced me to recognize her in her own right-something I had put off until that time. Parents of children who have led unconventional lives deserve the same opportunity to honor the choices their children have made. What supporters of Proposition 8 have failed to realize is that committing to each other is different from committing to a life-style. Marriage helps make us part of the human family. About that, we should not be ambivalent. Sharing this family value will help bring us all together.
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
