Language as Symbolic Action
In his book, Language as Symbolic Action, the late Kenneth Burke wrote this:
The ultimate origins of language seem as seem to me as mysterious as the origins of the universe itself. One must view it, I feel, simply as “the given.” But once an animal comes into being that does happen to have this particular aptitude, the various tribal idioms are unquestionably developed by their use as instruments in the tribe’s way of living (the practical role of symbolism in what the anthropologist, Malinowski, has called “context of situation”) … Even if any given terminology is a reflection of reality, by its very nature as a terminology it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent it must also function as a deflection of reality.
So, then, what must our dear Canadian friends be thinking about this? If they know Kenneth Burke, they’re thinking we Yanks are as mysterious as the origins of language. They’re wondering at our tribal idioms and trying to imagine the way of living those idioms symbolize. They’re trying to imagine the context of a situation in which more than 3,000 of our tribesmen would be blown away in a single September act, thousands more would be killed in the resulting war, we’d round up affiliated killers and cohorts and detain them offshore, the chief of our tribe would decide to release them, and then we’d try to get another country to take them when we won’t allow them in our own. They’re trying to fathom the nature of the realities we’re reflecting, selecting, and deflecting. And they’re no doubt trying to plumb the depths of the stupidity we must attribute to their own tribe.
Is it possible that righteousness can cause blindness? Can it induce audacity, even if unwitting? The reality being deflected is clear: we’re desperately trying to deflect the fact that we’re desperately trying to fulfill a domestic political promise that can’t be fulfilled without palpable domestic risk. In the face of that self-imposed risk, as our commander-in-chief is wont to do with our earnings, we’re trying to “spread it around”. The reality being reflected is fuzzy but clear enough to be terrifying: we’re reflecting the impression that we’re arrogant enough to think others will blithely take our bitter pill – or we’re reflecting our assumption that others are so ignorant they won’t recognize the taste or discern the poison. But what kind of reality is being selected in which we would actually ask a nation with which we share a continent to take people so potentially dangerous we won’t have them here? How dizzying are the heights of arrogance – how deep the valleys of ignorance – that we would attempt to sicken another tribe with a “cure” our own tribesmen refuse to self-administer?
Grandpa O’Brien was taken as humorous when he used to say, “Strange things are happening.” He wasn’t joking. And he didn’t know the half of it. We don’t, either. The rest of the world is learning. Albert Einstein, who’s almost as famous as Grandpa O’Brien, said: “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the former.” For the latter, there is an ample and growing body of evidence. And we certainly seem determined to validate and add to that body of evidence, just as we seem determined to symbolize our contemptible actions through our constant efforts to exploit and abuse language, at the expense of others, while ignoring its symbolic action.