Living Speech: Resisting the Empire of Forceby James Boyd White
Language is our key to imagining the world, others, and ourselves. Yet sometimes our ways of talking dehumanize others and trivialize human experience. In war other people are imagined as enemies to be killed. The language of race objectifies those it touches, and propaganda disables democracy. Advertising reduces us to consumers, and clichés destroy the life
- Editorial Reviews
- Product Details
- Related Subjects
- Read an Excerpt
- What People Are Saying
- Meet the author
Language is our key to imagining the world, others, and ourselves. Yet sometimes our ways of talking dehumanize others and trivialize human experience. In war other people are imagined as enemies to be killed. The language of race objectifies those it touches, and propaganda disables democracy. Advertising reduces us to consumers, and clichés destroy the life of the imagination.
How are we to assert our humanity and that of others against the forces in the culture and in our own minds that would deny it? What kind of speech should the First Amendment protect? How should judges and justices themselves speak? These questions animate James Boyd White's Living Speech, a profound examination of the ethics of human expression--in the law and in the rest of life.
Drawing on examples from an unusual range of sources--judicial opinions, children's essays, literature, politics, and the speech-out-of-silence of Quaker worship--White offers a fascinating analysis of the force of our languages. Reminding us that every moment of speech is an occasion for gaining control of what we say and who we are, he shows us that we must practice the art of resisting the forces of inhumanity built into our habits of speech and thought if we are to become more capable of love and justice--in both law and life.
Eloise A. Buker
"In Living Speech, White is rooted in his own proper study of the law, but he 'blurs' his work over in many directions, notably to classical drama, poetry, and philosophy, even with indirect traces and hints of theology. The effect is to summon readers--especially, but by no means exclusively, students of law--beyond the conventional limits and procedures of their discipline. . . . His book is an exercise in the humanities of a wise and urgent kind."--Walter Brueggeman, Michigan Law Review
"Living Speech provides readers with White's usual insights on the rhetorical power of language, ferreting out its influence through a range of life-constituting (or life-draining) texts that include examples from legal decisions, classical Greek drama, Plato, as well as poetry from Shakespeare, Dante, William Carlos Williams, and Robert Frost. . . . His passionate commitment to the struggle to recognize and to preserve the richness of our humanity and the need for human freedom and solidarity is inspiring."--Omar Swartz, Rhetoric Review
"This is a book about disrespect--and about the benefits of practicing it.... This is a compelling book--an appropriate tract for our times that deserves widespread and careful reading in an era deeply infected by the linguistic plagues James Boyd White disinfects through disrespect."--Thomas Holbrook, Federal Lawyer
"Drawing from a variety of examples, such as literature, judicial opinions, children's essays, Greek tragedy, and political correspondence, this book analyzes the force of language. White argues that speech is inherently objectifying, and every speech act is an occasion for gaining control of who we are and what we proclaim."--Law & Social Inquiry
"White is an interdisciplinary scholar who speaks to those interested in law, politics, literature, and ethics. His argument offers a way of understanding the present poverty of public discourse, and he invites individual citizens to speak more frankly, more openly , and with more candor in order to articulate their experience in ways that more fully present their own thinking rather than repeating political clichés. This can undo totalitarianisms of various kinds. Living Speech is an important book for thinking about how we speak with each other about justice, and so it is valuable to academics but also to leaders. In this work, White is both a scholar and a public intellectual."--Eloise A. Buker, Perspectives on Politics
- Princeton University Press
- Publication date:
- Sold by:
- Barnes & Noble
- NOOK Book
- File size:
- 2 MB
Read an ExcerptLiving Speech Resisting the Empire of Force
By James Boyd White Princeton University Press
Copyright © 2006 Princeton University Press
All right reserved.
Introduction THE EMPIRE OF FORCE AND THE WORLD OF WORDS
In an important sense this entire book is an extended essay on the single sentence that stands as its epigraph, taken from Simone Weil's wonderful essay on the Iliad: "No one can love and be just who does not understand the empire of force and know how not to respect it." For the purposes of this book it is a crucial fact that our knowledge of the empire and our capacity not to respect it-and the opposite of these things-all show up constantly in our uses of language, in what we confirm and what we resist, in what we reveal and what we hide, as we speak and write.
THE EMPIRE OF FORCE AS WAR
Weil wrote her essay on the Iliad during the period of fascism in Europe, just at the beginning of World War II, and saw the ancient poem as speaking directly to the horrible moment in which Europe and the world found themselves. The Iliad is of course about a stage in the Trojan war, which it describes in great and bloody detail. For Weil, this poem at once presents and criticizes the practice of dehumanization that is an inseparable part not only of a war between peoples but also, as we have since discovered, of that other kind of war that a government may wage against its own people. In this poem Homer sees, andbrings the reader to see, the equal value and humanity of Greek and Trojan, of the human beings on both sides of this war. That is in fact the poem's central achievement: to identify and to criticize, indeed to undermine, what Weil calls the empire of force-the ideology, the way of imagining the world and oneself and others within it-that is always present in war and required by it, but present also in our lives whenever people deny the humanity of others whom they destroy, manipulate, or exploit.
What Weil says about war is undeniably the case. If one is not a psychopath, one can engage in war only by denying the full humanity of those one is trying to kill. This is true even for a person fighting out of deeply felt idealism, on the side of democracy and decency, say, against tyranny and genocide. Think, for example, of the mentality that would make it possible to participate in the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo in World War II. The people one is trying to incinerate-children, old people, tram conductors, electricians, musicians, laborers, factory workers, clerks, secretaries, mothers-are themselves of course no threat to our nation or its safety, and one knows this perfectly well. The thought is that if we destroy enough of them, in a hideous enough way, those in charge of the military that does present such a threat will lose their will to fight. We are killing civilians by fire to persuade generals and politicians to surrender.
In purely military engagements the situation is not so very different: the people you are trying to kill, who are also trying to kill you, would in other circumstances be recognized as people-in our own country as tourists perhaps, or as the locals if we were traveling abroad, or even as neighbors and friends if one of us came to live in the other's country. It is through the operation of the military draft, or the work of war fever and propaganda, or by some deep political failure on one side or the other, or on both-by some horrible mistake-that you find yourselves fighting each other to the death. You naturally experience triumph when you succeed, as does the soldier you oppose. Yet whenever anyone dies, on whichever side, a world of possibility dies with him or her, a web of relationships of caring and concern. A part of the fabric of humanity and human community has been torn to bits.
In a sense we know all this, of course. But we cannot allow this knowledge to be present and active when we are engaged in war, whether as a soldier or as a civilian cheering on the troops. It would not be endurable. And the dehumanization of which I speak is present as well in the psychological and political process that leads to war. It is a way of justifying war: you begin to paint "them" as monstrous, superstitious, barbarian, ignorant, savage, inhuman, and then you can go to war against them. Think of the Serbians who were married to Croatians in what was once Yugoslavia, or of the Hutu and Tutsi living at peace in Rwanda, all of whom suddenly discovered that there were lines of murderous enmity where before there were none.
In her essay Weil shows that for Homer, and for us, the dehumanization of others is an inherent psychological cost of war, a denial of truth that corrodes the mind and will. Perhaps it is necessary, if the war is necessary, but it is always present, as an ineluctable cost of the activity. To take an event that occurred during the writing of this book, recall the American effort to kill Iraq's Saddam Hussein by bombing a restaurant in which he was thought to be dining. In the reports I read of this event, the only topic considered was the question whether we had succeeded in killing him. I saw no reflection of the fact that we had surely killed other people who were having dinner at the restaurant that evening, workers in the kitchen, waiters, passersby, and so on. Their deaths were, in the jargon of our day, collateral damage, like the shattering of plates and glasses. Yet each of these persons was a center of meaning and life; presumably all had friends and relations, children or parents, whose lives were injured, perhaps destroyed, by this violent killing. It is Homer's achievement in the Iliad to bring to our attention where we cannot deny it the recognition of the common humanity of people on both sides of a war, a recognition that the very activity of war requires us all to suppress.
Of course, as Homer also makes clear, it is true that on these dreadful conditions human beings can be capable of extraordinary virtue and achievement-courage and loyalty and mercy. Homer loves and admires the people of his world, trapped as they are in a system of war. But that system is his ultimate subject. It is overcome only occasionally in the lives of his characters, at rare moments of understanding and feeling; but it is overcome constantly in his text, which recognizes and never forgets what no one in the poem can wholly see or act upon, the common humanity of Greek and Trojan.
All this is not necessarily to say that war is always wrong-though that is what some people may conclude-or that a good person cannot make a career with real nobility in the military, for that is surely possible, but rather that a necessary cost even of what we denominate a just war is that in it we erase the reality of other human beings and of what we do to them. This is a serious evil; maybe a justified evil, but an evil nonetheless.
THE EMPIRE OF FORCE AS A HABIT OF MIND
What interests me in this book is not so much the phenomenon of war itself as what lies behind war, and behind not only war but all the forms of power that enable or require us to reduce other people to objects, to deny their equal claims to a life of meaning and fulfillment. These are the systems of thought and imagination at work in our heads and hearts that make up an empire of force with which it is a duty, a necessity, to come to terms if we ourselves are to realize our own best capacities of mind and feeling. My question is not whether this or that particular war is justified, given the attitudes and arrangements of power that led to it and to the situation in which it breaks out, but what is to be done about those attitudes and arrangements and situations in the first place-about, that is, the empire of force with which we always live, even in peacetime, and which is in a sense always preparing for the war in which it will attain its fullest expression. That is the subject of Weil's essay and of this book.
One form this empire takes is the familiar one of which I have been speaking: that of armed men systematically destroying other people, armed and unarmed, and almost of necessity taking pleasure and satisfaction in so doing. Each person who is the object of destruction becomes, as Weil says, a thing in the mind of the other, not a person. But as I have suggested, the empire of force is at work not only in those who are engaged in the actual practices of war, but in others as well. Behind the men and women at the front are other people, all of us, committing ourselves to this activity, and necessarily engaging in our own ways of constructing those on the other side as things or animals or monsters, not people. Beyond even that, both for Weil and for the purposes of this book, the empire exists in other forms, in ordinary life and politics, throughout our lives in fact-whenever we find ourselves denying each other's full humanity in the way we speak and think.
For the "force" of the empire of which Weil speaks is not simply military or physical in nature, but also psychological, emotional, and ideological. Though power may come from the barrel of a gun, as Chairman Mao once said, it is a real power only by virtue of the understandings among people that make the guns and bombs and spears usable and effective. All power rests on agreement among those exercising it. You can only order the secret police to sweep a neighborhood, to spy on citizens, to kill or torture opponents, if they are willing to accept orders and, in a democracy, only if the people become willing to accept the existence of a secret police who will do such things. And the members of the secret police themselves will obey orders only because they accept a vision of the world that supports this role and because this vision is confirmed by others.
What looks like external and physical force thus always depends upon-is really a manifestation of-forces at work within the mind and imagination. These forces are as real, and in their own way can be ultimately as destructive, as physical power. This means that the empire of force has presence and power in the minds of each of its agents and servants and supporters-in each of us who does not oppose it, who does not understand it and know how not to respect it. This is in fact where it really lives, in the mind; without that life it would have no force at all.
This dimension of empire can be deliberately created by a master manipulator, like Joseph Goebbels, or it can be something that looks quite different, simply the culture working itself out in our imaginations and our hearts. Each of us grows up surrounded by languages, codes, manners, expectations-ways of imagining the world and oneself and others within it-that tell us what to say and how to say it, what to do and how to do it. Mastery of these systems of meaning is essential to social competence: you have to know how to talk to your schoolmates, to your teacher, to your employer or employee, to the vendor at the newsstand, and so on, or you will be unable to achieve any of your objectives in life, indeed be unable to formulate objectives in the first place. But mastery of a culture's resources for social interaction, for claiming meaning for experience, is also a kind of submission to them.
This submission may be to something deeply evil. Think of the "Aryan" child raised as a good German by his loving parents in the 1930s, for example, or a "white" child in a slave-owning family in our own country before the Civil War, each learning patterns of thought and feeling, even as very young children, that supported such horrors as mass murder and hereditary racial enslavement. The American language of race, from which none of us in this country can escape, is its own version of the empire of force, ruling each of us from inside our minds and hearts.
But the empire extends beyond such obvious evils to reach whatever modes of thought and imagination we unthinkingly or unconsciously adopt that deny our common humanity: our failure to see that the child born into poverty in an inner-city public hospital is as fully a human being, with the same value and rights and claims, as our own more privileged children; our collective acceptance of the values of a consumer economy, which systematically reduces life to the stimulation and gratification of desires without any attention to their larger meaning for the individual or the community; our repeated insistence on an inherent difference between "us" and those "others" who are different, across a wide range of familiar contexts; and, to take an issue of special interest to me and to this book, our ways of thinking of our political leaders, not as people whom we can expect to speak to us in a genuine way about our nation's life and the problems that confront it, but as figures defined by a set of images and gestures, slogans and sound bites, just like those used to advertise commercial products on television. These systems of thought and imagination-in which all of us participate-tend to erase the reality and humanity of other people, and in doing so to make us agents of an empire of force. This Weil saw clearly; it means that for her the Iliad is a profound criticism not only of the heroic culture of war presented in that poem, but of forces at work every culture, every human society, every human life. The empire of force lives within us, each of us.
KNOWING AND NOT RESPECTING THE EMPIRE OF FORCE AS A PROBLEM OF WRITING
How are we to respond to the reality of our own participation in the systems of dehumanizing thought that make up so much of our own world, our own thinking, our own characters? Simone Weil's own life was a constant struggle to find an answer to that question, leading her to work in factories under soul-destroying conditions and ultimately to affirm her connection with the victims of war by refusing to eat more than she would have had in a concentration camp, a practice that led to her early death. That was the course she set for herself.
In the sentence I have quoted she suggests one place we might begin in shaping our own lives, telling us that the essential thing is to "understand" the empire of force and "know how not to respect" it. Yet how are we possibly to do this? How can we recognize the empires of force already at work in each of us, in the form of humanity-erasing languages- ways of imagining and thinking and speaking and acting-that exist in our minds, that shape our sense of the world? How can we learn not to respect these things, which are so much part of us? What are we to respect? What would it really look like to "recognize the humanity" of another person? Such are the questions that animate this book.
It is crucial for Weil, and for my purposes here, that the "understanding" and "not respecting" of which she speaks are internal activities of the individual mind. There is no adequate solution to the problem she identifies to be found in national policy, international law, programs or principles adopted by the National Council of Churches, philosophical systems, codes of conduct, or any other collective statement or action. These can of course all be good things or bad; but for us as individual people the only real remedy, and it is necessarily imperfect, lies in our own struggle to come to terms with the systems of meaning, with the languages, that shape our world: our effort to learn to understand the empire of force and how not to respect it. To fail in this endeavor, she tells us, is to fail to be capable of love and justice, the central ends and fulfillment of human existence. It is a task for a whole life.
Her sentence is not a call to quietism or removal from the world. Once we begin to see what happens when people successfully claim power over the lives of others, when an empire of force is created in language and in life, we should of course try to find ways to resist it in our conduct: in our voting, our political and social action, our contributions of money and time and energy. But-and this is crucial to the power and meaning of her sentence-the problem she identifies does not go away when we act on the side of the poor and the oppressed, when we are reformers of the system, good as those things are. For when we explain and justify what we think, and what we do, we shall still be working with language, language will still be working with us, and our own formulations can quickly become the language of another empire, full of slogans, sentimentalities, falsities, and denials, of trivializations and dehumanizations. What we think and say can in a deep way replicate just what we should be most trying to resist.
Excerpted from Living Speech by James Boyd White
Copyright © 2006 by Princeton University Press. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
What People are saying about this
Robin West, Georgetown University
Howard Lesnick, University of Pennsylvania
Meet the Author
James Boyd White is Hart Wright Professor of Law, Professor of English, and Adjunct Professor of Classical Studies at the University of Michigan. His books include "The Legal Imagination" and "The Edge of Meaning".
and post it to your social network
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
See all customer reviews >