Imagine waking up, making your cup of coffee and standing outside your home enjoying the warm sun seeing a beautiful span of neighborhood homes lining the street you are on. You see your neighbor doing the same wearing a huge smile and while he sips his delicious brew. You wave at him only to see that smile become a distinct and angry frown. He waves back, and yells something you don’t understand. You both are confused and frustrated but move on with your day.
This could be an example of not sharing common expressions, and only a small example of what happens when language and culture bifurcate within a society. Having a common understanding of what expressions and language means is one of the most important bedrocks to having a functional society and misunderstanding the change in language over time is one way to easily destroy common goals. The Bible describes this phenomenon within the story of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) There is so much knowledge packed into this 9 line story, but one of the most interesting of them is the concept of language being confounded when Man attempts to become like God. Another consideration of this phenomenon to consider is that when Man attempts to have One Language, they are bound to attempt to be like God.
This is not a referendum on the Bible as a factual document, nor is it a denial or approval of the Bible as a whole. Regardless, the story has some amazing points to be taken and viewed against the current change in language across the American society and more broadly the cultural west. This is also not a focus on one particular language per se, but the methods of communication and common principles held by the West in general.
To begin, we must discuss the overall ‘cultural norms’ of the West set in a Judeo/Christian framework. The most basic of this is the structure and modalities of political discussion at the lowest level: The Family. The most basic description of a family is, “the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children” (“Family,” 2022) This describes what we consider a family political unit. The base definition includes a spouse framework built for children, however this is the first definitional change that is starting to occur. According to the University of Florida Department of Multicultural and Diversity Affairs, “…terminology is so fluid and identity labels mean different things to different people…” (University of Florida Division of Student Life, 2022) This, by nature, means that there can be no common definition of a particular subject. This makes having a conversation on what The Family is impossible and should therefore revert any definition to one that has been widely accepted in the current culture. This does not mean that that Obergefell V Hodges is rightly or wrongly decided, but does mean that the structure of family should be defined as previously held; spouses for the purpose of children. This also does not preclude adoption from the definition of children within a family OR that same sex marriage is right or wrong, only that a marriage should be for the purpose of generating a family as described above.
The next level of political structure to discuss in this vein of conversation is the community. This should be, at the most basic level, a unified body of people with common interests living in a particular area. (Community, 2022). Although the size of this body of people can fluctuate, the most important feature of this definition is common interests. To this, we can review a community at multiple levels and see how common interests behold an individuals actions to that group. At the smallest level, a family generally has a common interest set of life and prosperity for that family. For example, a Husband and Wife generally engage in positive actions for the family, distributing required workloads to create and foster an environment that benefits both spouses and any children within the family. Anomalous spousal sets (same sex) can also mimic this behavior, though there are functional differences that become apparent immediately. For example, it would be impossible for a same sex couple to procreate within the confines of the marriage. The next level of community to consider would be community gathering spaces. Some of the most common forms of this are churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques. These have a generally foundational ethical/religious structure that points towards a greater purpose for life and normally have particular action sets that are considered “good” and “evil”, depending on the faith structure. Other community models include; community programs, outreach programs, sports programs, and many others.
The final level of political structure to discuss is governmental. A government can be described as “the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority of a political unit or organization” (Government, 2022) This can be, much like community, at various sizes and consist of various structures, however should be considered the final level of political structure. What should be held as a common understanding is described well in the US Declaration of Independence, “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” (“Declaration of Independence: A Transcription,” 2022) What this means is that the individual basis of rights is described by those asserting those rights and cannot be alienated without the consent of those individuals. This also means that at each level of political structure, less and less intervention is possible while maintaining what should be considered a common set of interests. This brings the discussion back to the idea of common language, language expression, and definitions. For a Government to assert that they are deriving their powers with and from the consent of those governed, there must be an overarching common definitional framework and language. This does not mean that one tongue, or common parlance, is required within a governed body, but does mean that the definitional framework of that body must only evolve over a natural course. Changing definitions cannot, therefore, occur at the governmental level.
It is apparent that definitional changes are occurring currently from the community level, although the ‘Community’ in question is attempting to do so within a governmental framework. One good example of this comes from the Obergefell V Hodges decision in 2015. The decision took what was considered a basically defined term in ‘marriage’ and argued syntactically that, that definition must be expanded beyond “…define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.” (“OBERGEFELL V. HODGES,” 2015) Whether the term should be changed or not is irrelevant to the argument that the Supreme Court should not be the body that makes that definition. This takes the political body of a community and expanded it to a political body of a Government, bifurcating common definitions and forcing communities with separate interests to agree on a definitional change. Like the Tower of Babel description, this generates a modality for the larger governed body to dissent and has, and will continue to, generate a chaotic nature to definitional changes.
To summarize, it is difficult to change language and it should take long periods of time and happen with consensus. This means that the governmental level of political involvement should only occur AFTER there is a large enough consensus across the community level, and should only occur if and when there is a genuine need for their intervention. On the contrary, governmental involvement should generally only occur for the few purposes of the consensus of the governed, commonly maintaining safety and security being the primary purpose. An interesting example of this would be Fireflies vs Lightning Bugs. Although the two are definitionally the same in that the bug described is ubiquitous, there is no need for governmental intervention to pick between the two. This could have been the outcome of the Obergefell V Hodges decision in that marriage definitionally could have been regarded as “one man and one woman” while rights and privileges for anomalous families could have been expanded while maintaining the definition of “family”. There are many more examples of language changes from the governmental level being troublesome. The most likely correction to this would be to reduce the government involvement to the will of the people and should happen always at the lowest possible levels.
References:
Declaration of Independence: A Transcription. (2022, June 8). Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript
family. (n.d.). In The Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/family
OBERGEFELL v. HODGES. (2015, June 26). Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556
University of Florida Division of Student Life. (2022). LGBTQ Terms and Definitions. Retrieved September 29, 2022, from https://lgbtq.multicultural.ufl.edu/programs/speakersbureau/lgbtq-terms-definitions/