"Taken out of Context"
That string of words infuriates me, especially since I've been hearing it a lot owing to the Reverend Wright fiasco (for those who don't know, he's Barack Obama's former minister, and has been shown uttering incendiary and offensive language and sentiments).
Apologists of the Reverend, like some Islamic apologists who try to defend what is really untenable, repeat this phrase mechanically and peremptorily. The phrase has pretty much become a "get yourself out of anything" card.
Given my linguistic and theoretical training, as well as my interest in linguistics/deconstruction (Derrida and Fish come to mind), I acknolwedge that context is an often overlooked part of the chain of signification. Even when we do not think there is a context, there is, as Fish reminds us in his (in)famous "Is there a text in this class?".
However, I have yet to see a single apologist for Reverend Wright or other causes actually back up their statements and enlighten us as to just what the words mean in context, or at least what that context is. A recent example where the context argument was valid was a speech Pope Benedict made in Germany about a year ago. The Pope was accused, by people who never read or heard the speech, of being anti-Islamic because he said something about the lack of logic in Islam. In this case, his words were definitely taken out of context: the Pope opened his speech by quoting from (I believe) a medieval theologian, who was quoting a (supposed) debate that took place between the Byzantine emperor and a Muslim leader on the question of logic and faith. The Pope was asked to apologize for something he never said.
The context argument would work for Reverend Wright only if something similar happened. If he was being ironic or humorous, for instance, the context argument would apply. If he prefaced his remarks by saying something like "Some people say 'God Damn America,'" and someone removed the first part, then the context argument would apply.
The phrase has always been used in irritating ways, but it seems you can't turn the news on now without hearing it. I don't know what I'll do if I hear it one more time.
By the way, for those who recall the Don Imus fiasco: was what he said really that bad? I sure don't think so, even though it was foolish of him to say something like that. Nevertheless, I'm sure Imus's relative lack of skin pigmentation has something to do with him getting fired.
Apologists of the Reverend, like some Islamic apologists who try to defend what is really untenable, repeat this phrase mechanically and peremptorily. The phrase has pretty much become a "get yourself out of anything" card.
Given my linguistic and theoretical training, as well as my interest in linguistics/deconstruction (Derrida and Fish come to mind), I acknolwedge that context is an often overlooked part of the chain of signification. Even when we do not think there is a context, there is, as Fish reminds us in his (in)famous "Is there a text in this class?".
However, I have yet to see a single apologist for Reverend Wright or other causes actually back up their statements and enlighten us as to just what the words mean in context, or at least what that context is. A recent example where the context argument was valid was a speech Pope Benedict made in Germany about a year ago. The Pope was accused, by people who never read or heard the speech, of being anti-Islamic because he said something about the lack of logic in Islam. In this case, his words were definitely taken out of context: the Pope opened his speech by quoting from (I believe) a medieval theologian, who was quoting a (supposed) debate that took place between the Byzantine emperor and a Muslim leader on the question of logic and faith. The Pope was asked to apologize for something he never said.
The context argument would work for Reverend Wright only if something similar happened. If he was being ironic or humorous, for instance, the context argument would apply. If he prefaced his remarks by saying something like "Some people say 'God Damn America,'" and someone removed the first part, then the context argument would apply.
The phrase has always been used in irritating ways, but it seems you can't turn the news on now without hearing it. I don't know what I'll do if I hear it one more time.
By the way, for those who recall the Don Imus fiasco: was what he said really that bad? I sure don't think so, even though it was foolish of him to say something like that. Nevertheless, I'm sure Imus's relative lack of skin pigmentation has something to do with him getting fired.
posted by Pious Labours | 12:28 p.m.
|
6 comments
