In the following I take up and elaborate on the claim that we do things with words. That is, as speakers in a culture bound by convention and ritual, words are not merely an expressive tool but a form of action. More importantly still, words can – and often do – wound in the very uttering of them. As to the question of how words wound, J.L. Austin provides us with the working theory – speech act theory. Like the illocutionary force of warning or marrying or christening, there is an illocutionary force of subordinating. Drawing together Austin's speech act theory with the theory of meaning and conversation provided by H.P. Grice, we have a formula for actively addressing the peculiar harm that is done in hate speech. If harm is well enough established then prima facie something ought to be done about that harm. What remains is the question: what does intervention look like? To that end, the main objective of this project is to show that there are avenues for interrupting the illocutionary force of subordination beyond either enlisting the coercive power of the state or leaving recourse to the “open marketplace of ideas.” Somewhere between the Dworkin-MacKinnon anti-pornography ordinance and Judith Butler’s “resignification” is an alternate path. In the following I develop a concept that I call "uncooperative engagement" as a means of redress that is both tenable and ethical.
Read
