On Flag-Burning and Signification

Marshwiggle wrote: Also, I'd note that the combustion of a physical textile has no relation to the spoken or written word.. surely an english major does not find burning and speaking synonomous. I respectfully submit that we're confusing "freedom of expression" with "freedom of speech" here.

It seems that we have a problem of definition here. It's my fault; I was using an idea from my current reading (discourse analysis; real fun stuff... urgh) and didn't define it very well. Take a look at the comment Marshwiggle was responding to: It is a reconfiguration of a physical symbol, and that, to me, is a speech act.

Notice that I did not claim it was "speech." Rather, I claimed that it was a speech act (though I admit that I am taking the linguist's notion of "speech act" a bit further than more traditional theorists do).

A speech act consists of a physical action that makes use of a symbolic system common both to the actor and observer(s) of said action (this normally involves the voice and a linguistic system). The action is normally undertaken for the purpose of affecting the behavior of the observer(s) of said act.

For instance, if a mother were to walk into her child's room and say, "this place is a mess" within the child's hearing, the child would be expected to either provide some explanation or begin cleaning the room (or at the very least, provide assent to cleaning the room at a later date).

Another example of a speech act would be a preacher standing on a street corner holding a cross and saying, "There is salvation through no other name! Come to Jesus!" The cross, though not a part of the vocative utterance of the preacher, is an essential part of his message -- it is intended to remind the hearer(s) of Christ's death for sin on a cross. His holding of it serves an important, irreplacable rhetorical purpose and therefore would be considered under my schema as a speech act.

What I'm arguing is that the burning of a flag should be every bit as covered under the First Amendment as the preacher's right to hold that cross on the street corner.

No, the burning of a flag does not involve formal linguistic systems, written or spoken. Nevertheless, it still is a symbolic method of communication with conventional precedents and deeply inscribed social and cultural meanings. Thus, I would argue that it is a speech act even though it does not entail utterance or inscription of language.

The burning of a flag is a significant rhetorical move whose effect cannot be achieved in any other way. It is thus an abridgement of free speech to prevent flags from being burnt.

Flag Burning

Congress's second recent attempt at a Constitutional amendment failed yesterday by one vote. The amendment, which the Associated Press reported on today, was an attempt to ban flag burning. I could talk all I wanted about this amendment, but a legislator has already said it better than I could:

"Our country's unique because our dissidents have a voice," said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, a World War II veteran who lost an arm in the war and was decorated with the Medal of Honor.

"While I take offense at disrespect to the flag," he said, "I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech."

I'm very thankful for people like Inouye who believe that pre-existing Constitutional amendments should trump new ones.

Today's Junk Science Brought to You By Canada

Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.

You've probably read about a recent study that links having older brothers to being gay:

Having one or more older brothers boosts the likelihood of a boy growing up to be gay — an effect due not to social factors, but biological events that occur in their mother's womb, according to a study published today.

In an analysis of 905 men and their siblings, Canadian psychologist Anthony Bogaert found no evidence that social interactions among family members played a role in determining whether a man was gay or straight.

We all probably expect the reactionary right to come out swinging against this study, right? (And they'd probably find some justification in doing so, because this seems a lot like one of those "correlation=causality" deals.) But those interested in gender theory should have every bit as much interest in it, I think. The implication here is that cathexis has roots that are primarily biological, which introduces a lot of problems for people who conceptualize sexuality as a socially constructed attribute of humanity.

According to the LA Times article I quote above, "Canadian psychologist Anthony Bogaert found no evidence that social interactions among family members played a role in determining whether a man was gay or straight." This sentence sets off so many warning buzzers in my head that I feel like I just dropped acid. How is it at all possible to dissect every piece of a family's social interaction and then quantify whether any of these pieces could possibly have contributed to development of nonheterosexual sexualities?!

As you probably could have guessed, these psychologists haven't got a clue what (if any) biological mechanism is causing this. However, queer theorists will be troubled (or, knowing them, delighted) by one possible answer: "women's bodies react to male fetuses' proteins as foreign, making antibodies to fight them." As more and more male fetuses are born, the antibodies grow stronger and stronger. In other words, the gay male body is a pathology.

The study has a sample size of a little over 900, which isn't too bad... until you realize how tiny the research findings really are. The article says,

The so-called fraternal birth order effect is small: Each older brother increases the chances by 33%. Assuming the base rate of homosexuality among men is 2%, it would take 11 older brothers to give the next son about a 50-50 chance of being gay.

It seems a bit hasty to use less than a thousand Canadian gays to come to this conclusion.

Regardless, if we assume the data are correct, the first older brother increases the chances of siblings being gay from 2% by 33% to make it 2.66%. The next brother makes it 3.5%. The next makes it 4.7%. So 4.7% of younger siblings in big families (4 or more children) become gay. I don't know if any of you have experience with being in a large family, but from my own observations, I don't think there'd need to be a biological reason for a younger sibling in such a family to fail to comply with sociocultural norms (I'm not arguing that it's intentional; I'm just saying that it wouldn't surprise me if these kiddos had their cathexes severely displaced as a result of their family's abnormal social infrastructure).

That's about all I've got to say about this, except to deplore that the press makes such a big (albeit superficial) deal about these things one day and moves on to something else the next. That's all.

The News of My Impending Death Came at a Very Bad Time For Me...

Everyone's favorite Muggle (who is now richer than Queen Elizabeth) has announced the death of two additional characters: "Author J.K. Rowling said two characters will die in the last installment of her boy wizard series, and she hinted Harry Potter might not survive either."

Rowling warned that the two characters might be fairly major: "We are dealing with pure evil here. They don't target extras do they? They go for the main characters."

Here's hoping that Percy is one of them.

A Rambling Rant on Christian Social Action

Note from the LuapHacim, 11/14/2012: The views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my current beliefs and convictions. Even if they do, I would almost certainly express them in different words today. Time changes people, and I am not exempt. Nonetheless, because of its historical value, I will not modify or remove this post. It tells you (and me) something important about where I've been. Read on at your own peril.

In a comment on my last post, marshwiggle wrote:

I tend to believe that man is essentially the same as he was two thousand years ago. Then again, I only think that because history simply records the same power grabs and cruelty over and over again. Can change be accomplished? Yes, but only through self-interest.

But my point earlier was that if change can be accomplished, then by definition, these specific social problems are not essential to humanity. That is, they do not have to occur to all humans.

Ironically, the best way to preach social change is either on the grounds of religion- i.e. ethics handed down by higher authority and seeking to please that god by doing things to please him/her, financial interests i.e. this will bring me more money, or increased power, i.e. this will make me one of the elite or make everyone equal

(There's a pretty enormous moral difference between these two things, isn't there?)

(this usually only appeals to the ones who feel subjugated, or the last method shown to work- violence- change because I will hurt/kill you otherwise. Since religion tends to be despicable to the progressive movement, along with capitalism (the financial method) you are left with socialism's empty power sharing promises or violence.. Am I forgetting a proven method of change? Enlighten me. :)

Well, as far as you and I are concerned, there's the power of Christ in the lives of His followers. Because all the methods you mentioned depend on a leveraging of human power, they are dependent on our fallible ability to make them work. But I believe that social change impelled by Christ's love is not something that will ever be ineffective; the Implementor of this method simply does not fail.

How, then, should we act politically as followers of Christ? I would argue that it is our duty to act in a way that demonstrates our love for mankind -- and I don't really see laissez-faire capitalism, for instance, as an especially loving system -- in order that people may see our good works and glorify our father who is in heaven.

I don't advocate a massive socialist welfare state, but it seems like it'd be nice to create a system where poor people aren't required to stay poor, no matter how hard they try to get ahead. It seems like it would be nice to have a health care system that is affordable even for the poorest (instead of for those who will get along somehow anyway).

And perhaps legislation isn't the best way to effect this change. Maybe, in theory, a privatized system would work as well. All I know is that something needs to change, and legislation seems easiest to implement. The status quo is harsh at best. There are people in the U.S. (to say nothing of elsewhere) who die because they can't afford operations, pharmaceuticals, or other necessities of life.

Reform needs to happen, and who better to undertake it than the salt and light? Why shouldn't we see social change as a Christian duty?