SPEECH ACTS or HOW WORDS CREATE POLITICAL REALITIES

ENJOY PHILOSOPHY MEETS WEEKLY EVERY SUNDAY BETWEEN 11.30 AND 14.30 AT EDUARDO VII PARK, HERE:** https://goo.gl/maps/5e3jKFEweXkNvDdK6

ITS THE GARDEN BETWEEN THE “CARLOS LOPES PAVILLION” AND THE “PRAIA NO PARQUE” RESTAURANT AT EDUARDO VII PARK.

THIS IS A GROUP FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN ENJOYING PHILOSOPHY.

NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE IS REQUIRED.

ONLY ETERNAL CURIOSITY AND THE PLEASURE OF KNOWLEDGE.

PLS KEEP UPDATED of any changes and updates on our WhatsApp Group:
Enjoy Philosophy Lisbon Group Access-Link

We will learn, debate, enjoy and investigate philosophers and diverse themes from the philosophical perspective. Each reunion is structured as a conversation among all attendees about that day s philosopher softly moderated by the organizer. The conversation will kick-off from the very brief suggested reading providing easy access to all attendees both to the philosopher and the conversation.

Let´s be greek and dive today on…

SPEECH ACTS...

When in 1962, J.L.Austin argued in "How to Do Things with Words" that expressions like “You are under arrest”
or “I pronounce you married” are not merely describing something but in fact are performing an action through language, he triggered a storm rumbling until now.

Those words create a shift in legal Status, in the norms applied to the participants.
Those expressions perform actions.

Those expressions create a new reality.

The Speech Act Theory was born and initially just outlined some institutional action-performing uses of language. (marriage, legal, etc...)

But then something happened.

Academics applied the insights to ordinary life outside institutions:
“I apologize.”, “I promise" are not just reports about actions.
They are the actions.
When A says "I promise" to B, the words perform the action of creating a commitment.

The performative role of language started to focus the attention of Philosophy. Assuming that language not only influences, explains or describes reality but ACTUALLY often CREATES social realities
had far reaching implications.

If a political leader consistently repeats “Fight like hell” , “Take back your country” ,“They stole the election”, “Patriots must act...".

Is there an action being performed?

Is he declaring emergency? Proclaiming the end of democracy? Calling to mobilization ? His words might very likely "create" a new social reality in his auditory. If shortly after, his followers assault the country´s Parliament... is he accountable?

Furthermore, Speech Act Theory clearly outlines that the intended message of a linguistic Communication (Illocutionary Force) is most of the times Not Explicit. "Is that the salt?" on a dinner table means "Pls, pass me the salt". We rarely say what we mean and part of the nature of Human communication is retrieving the intentions of the speaker, which we naturally do many times a day.

A speaker therefore does not need to say “commit violence now” explicitly in order to perform an inciting act.

Incitement, as most of the Speech Acts, is mostly indirect. “Real patriots know what to do.”
"If you don’t fight, you won’t have a country anymore.”

The Godfather´s classic "You know what you gotta do" describes quite exactly the way it very often works. Speech Acts give all kinds of covert operations an excellent Modus Operandi: No traces. No papers. No direct orders. No direct incriminating evidence. But they knew very well what they had to do.
That s Speech Act Theory... in Praxis.

Evidently the grounds and legal consequences of Speech Acts Theory can and do very often collide with the right to Free Speech.

So... dinner is on the table... (on Speech Acts pristine language)

Let s think about the Power of Language to create new realities... its magic, its dangers, its force...