I’m not any calmer now, but I have to share and despair this.
Last night Huckabee was on The Daily Show ostensibly to promote his book Do the Right Thing, but the extra long interview was definitely driven by Stewart who had a particular issue to address: the social conservative objection to gay marriage. Please, watch this if you’ve got time:
First, I admire the hell out of Stewart for being incisive but fair in his interview, challenging Huckabee without losing his cool. He even appeals to Huckabee’s ego by saying that he seems like an empathetic person. And, yes, I suppose to maintain that same civil tone, I can admit that Huckabee didn’t get obnoxious either. But his argument was circular, narrow, and lacked the intellectual range of Stewart’s.
Second, and what sticks in my craw, is that Huckabee’s argument hinges on the claim that “words do matter, definitions matter” as if language must be protected in some way, even though the definition of “marriage” that he and other social conservatives use is an abuse of language. Basically, Huckabee is taking some kind of modernist argument for some pure, absolute definition of marriage, and Stewart brilliantly points out how the meaning of marriage - as institution and term - has changed throughout human history. But Huckabee, with the typical neo-con topoi, keeps (re)winding a circular argument that marriage has to be defended because marriage has to be defended as a word. As a word? Is Huckabee really concerned about the linguistic intergrity of a word? Of course not. He’s concerned about disguising his and others’ homophobia and prejudicial fear-mongering behind a concern about semantics.
Honestly, I still can’t coherently write on this. I can only feel this white hot weight in the middle of my forehead - and sometimes in my chest - when I hear this bullshit. I’m not gay, so this is not something that even directly affects me. But, ironically, it DOES affect the meaning of marriage and that meaning should change. Language is meant to evolve. More importantly, especially for those of us who study language for its tremendous power, language defines our reality just as much as our reality defines language. As long as conservative homophobic thinkers like Huckabee are declaring themselves the sole defenders of our language, than the reality reflected/constructed through it will be at their mercy.
I want to be protected from that, because I believe happiness matters more than words. The catch: only through words can we make it possible for all people - regardless of sex, race, orientation, or any other characteristic - to be happy.
P. S. I also have to point out Stewart’s amazing articulation of how religion is a lifestyle choice, not homosexuality, and yet religious rights are protected in this country. Damn! He’s right up there with Obama in my rhetorical crushes list.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://blog.peithograph.net/2008/12/words-do-matter/trackback/
December 10, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Chaz Maddoc
The part of this style that hurts me the most is that, when a good argument comes against supporters of the ban, they can’t hear it. The imperative of reason just doesn’t push them to address things. At best, they retreat into vague claims about respecting that we disagree. Fuck that. Admit that your best arguments can’t cover for your traditional but illogical thoughts and I don’t have to waste time bringing reasons out that fade you nasty but that you are too thick to fucking hear.
One time I was approached by some mormons on the street. They were all god cares about you and I was like, yo, I heard y’all were racist. They were like, well, god didn’t like how some people were acting so he made them black and forbid them from mixing with white people. But we’re not *racist* or anything. Oh, okay, that clears things up. Just turn your bloodclot cheek so I can sock it one good time and go on my way.
Nietzche told us it was going to be like this. A ball of hate wearing the crown of god’s love, wrapped up in their own consensus and unable to even consider giving good reasons on a field made up of fundamental agreements. you ain’t gotta be gay to be directly affected by this. My man Martin said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Cause injustice moves from the plane of ideas and presses real bodies into contorted shapes. We liberate or fuck people based off of our thoughts about how things should be. Maybe we should act right and think passed the hallowed infallibility of the logos.
This blog ain’t noise, K. It is all signal.
December 11, 2008 at 1:12 am
kseas
“Chaz” - your point about “the imperative of reason” reminds me that I meant to mention Sharon Crowley’s _Toward a Civil Discourse_ which examines the rhetorical negotiation of liberalism v. fundamentalism. I haven’t read the whole thing, though I’m now prompted to get on that. But she made an appearance at Purdue and spoke to the essence of her argument:
Liberalism tries to use reason/rationality to determine its moral compass and counterargue fundamentalisms that seem irrational, prejudicial, and ultimately destructive. But the problem is that fundamentalists - a term that can be used rather broadly but aptly here - don’t appeal to logic nor see anything inconsistent about making illogical claims. To them the higher appeals are to tradition, god, and other value systems that are self-contained and seen as consistent if only from within. The conversation between a liberal and a fundamentalist is therefore nearly impossible, because we’re appealing to totally different grounds for consensus/disagreement.
From what I remember from her lecture, Crowley ultimately warns that liberalism has to find another way of reaching fundamentalists, another rhetorical approach that recognizes how self-enclosed, self-justifying, and exclusive those world views are. Indeed, she invokes my favorite term - enthymeme - as the quintessential quality of fundamentalist rhetoric. Thus what’s needed is not simply a more rational argument, but a counter-enthymeme to destabilize theirs.
What better way to destabilize assumptions than by undermining the definitions of the terms they use?
December 14, 2008 at 12:24 pm
santos
I would, not to defend Huckabee, point out that the binary is not necessarily between fundamentalism and liberals–it is between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives feel that human logic is itself a threat to True human values. There is dire need to protect our (metaphysical) inheritance from the deprecating influence of time.
And I do not think any logological approach (drawing from Burke, an approach predicated on logic, reason, etc as its metaphysical basis) will “destabilize” this view. I’m thinking of Grassi here, neither view can claim to be “more rational,” since all first principles (faith in the primacy of God, faith in the transient historical power of reason) can are non-rational. There is no logical way to prove God’s existence. Nor, however, is there any way to not prove that existence. And there is nothing more reasonable about not believing in that which cannot be proved (etc. etc.).
I believe the more strategic maneuver is to craft new language to usurp old power. Stop advocating for gay marriage, and instead advocate for civil unions. Yes its euphemistic. And yes, I realize that it is not the ideal solution. I realize it would be a very large concession on the part of the gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual communities.
But it sidesteps a large part of the fundamental argument that words have stable fundamental meanings. Thus, it sidesteps having to popularize a very sophistic(ated) notion of language. And it sidesteps the arguments about whether a particular group of people can “own” a word. It reframes the scene of the debate, and hopefully offers moderates a more appealing option.
December 14, 2008 at 1:49 pm
kseas
Santos, I like where you’re going here. I actually don’t think “civil unions” should be seen as a concession, but I’m not gay and don’t even have a hetero investment in marriage. Indeed, if “marriage” is strictly defined and limited only those unions sanctified by God, then I would prefer a civil union myself. I don’t need my commitment to another person to be endorsed by those who would restrict how I can define the dimensions of that commitment - especially since such restrictions have traditionally been sexist.
I was just talking to a new colleague about this Friday night, because she and her (male) partner rejected marriage and the weight of tradition that comes with it. They devised their own ceremony to publicly state their commitment. I don’t think they’re legally recognized as a civil union even, but their progressive approach is more supported by the notion of a civil union than by marriage. “Civil union” could be a wonderfully ambiguous term that is not rooted in a tradition that requires a First Principle other than Love.
But I’m sure there are plenty of gay couples who want “marriage” to include them because they want equality. Reminds me of power feminists - wanting what the boys have while leaving the system the same, rather than wanting to change what’s valued. Because the question is: do gay couples want equality in an institution that has traditionally been constraining and exploitative of half the human population (women) and only defines their “love” according to the values of procreation and property exchange?
December 19, 2008 at 3:40 am
michael
as i commented on marc’s blog however, many of those who are arguing for equal rights are not just doing it out of a desire for mere affirmation or inclusion in an ideological system. there are legal and procedural rights that rely on the terminology being inclusive. and many of those rights have to do with legal sharing of property and the ability to adopt with complete protection from discrimination.
the step might be necessary. concession is not.