Speech Act Theory, Post-modernism, and the Word of God (Part 1)

So here is the situation. Post Modernism thinks language fails and true communication between people is limited, if even possible. Christianity, on the other hand, affirms God has revealed himself through language in the Bible and eternal life or condemnation depends on this revelation.

Uh oh. That seems irreconcilable. Spoiler Alert: it is irreconcilable.

But now, enter the Speech Act Theory.

The Speech Act Theory was first promoted by J.L. Austin and developed further by John Searle. The heart of the theory breaks language into three parts: locution, illocution, and perlocution. Locution is the verbal content of what is being said. Illocution is what is being done when something is said. Perlocution is the effect of saying something.

To exemplify the theory, let’s look at the common story in Genesis 50 where Joseph confronts his brothers who sold him into slavery years before. Joseph’s brothers were scared after their father’s death that he would hate and punish them. But Joseph looked at them and said, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good.” The locution is the sentence As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good. It is the substance of the Speech Act. The illocution is Joseph’s action of speaking comfort and faith. With every illocution, there is an act of communication, not simply the physical act of talking. In this instance, giving comfort is Joseph’s action. The perlocution is the intended effect of a response of hope from his brothers and reconciliation.

Now that Language is an action, there can be failure to communicate and successful communication. Searle attributes the success of a ‘speech-act’ to the ability of getting our audience to recognize what we are trying to do, the illocutionary aspect. The intended effect (the perlocution) may fail or succeed, but the speech act always succeeds when understanding occurs. For instance, Joseph’s brothers could have fled from his words of comfort with hatred and Joseph’s speech act would have still succeeded because they understood he was trying to love them.

As Austin and Searle developed speech act theory, it transferred the importance of language to the author or speaker of words rather than the words themselves or the recipient of words. Post-modern thought often attributes meaning to the recipient of words whether the recipient is an individual or community. The meaning of language, written or spoken, now comes with the interpretation of the words by the individual or community and can thus have many many meanings based on Post-modern thought. This leads to multiple arenas of truth and meaning. However, the Speech Act Theory suggests meaning comes from one source: the author or speaker. Yes, there can be success and failure in communication, but truth has an origin and is possible to convey.

That is some good information and helpful in the discussion of Post-modern thought, but does it really affect us on a daily, personal level. How can this theory affect the way we view the Bible? How do speech acts affect the way we interpret the Bible? How do speech acts affect our preaching and listening of the Bible? For these answers you have to read Part 2 (and yes this is a ploy to get you to read more articles on Veritas, Haha).