How to Do Things With Words
Guys, I’m sorry. I just can’t help it. It’s too interesting to a philosophy and linguistics double major. The following is a speech act – specifically, a “performative utterance.” That is, upon complete and accurate speaking of these words, in the appropriate context (as defined by the Constitution and American democratic tradition, in this case), the speaker not only has said something, but some act has been performed. Like me making a bet, “$10 on Timely Rider,” or me and Lani saying “I do” on March 31, 2007; or like God saying “Let there be light.”; or like…
Performing on Tuesday... or maybe not...
“I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
J.L. Austin (PIPE!)
was the first to take up
performative utterances as a topic in philosophy of language. His student
John Searle followed him. I took Searle’s class on Philosophy of Language when I was in school. A performative is an illocutionary act that bears to “truth value” – that is, it can’t be true or false. Rather, Austin and Searle offer that the sentence is either “felicitous” or “infelicitous” (“happy” or “unhappy”). A performative is only happy when it’s fulfilled.
John R. Searle
There are plenty of articles about the transposition of “faithfully.” Here are the articles (well, just a few of them).
AJC
NYT
Guardian
Steven Pinker
Pinker’s is the most interesting since he’s a cognitive scientist and linguist, and he explains the syntax of the problem (Roberts initially administered what is commonly thought to be more grammatically correct, that is, he did it without “splitting the verb” “will execute” with “faithfully”; but the Constitution does commit that grammatical error of splitting the verb…).
I’m not all that bothered about an inaugural do-over. I think it’s good that they “made sure.” And I think we go too far to say (as some have in fact said) that the oath doesn’t even matter, and that, regardless of the oath (or accuracy thereof), the prez-elect is officially prez at 12:00 p.m. during the inauguration. But then why even bother with the words? Well, because the oath and promise means something, and that’s one of the necessary conditions for being president (I don’t think it’s a sufficient condition, since it depends on other things as well).
But now, regarding the absence of a Bible…
It’s a little weird that he would flub while performing his oath WITH the Bible, but then arrange for an official do-over WITHOUT the Bible. Not to mention that the flub had to do with the word “faithfully.”
This explanation, cited in the Guardian, from US Constitution Online, isn’t sufficient I don’t think. In fact it kinda bothers me:
“There is no constitutional requirement that the oath be sworn on a Bible. There is also no prohibition. So, a Bible can be used, but so could anything, including the Koran, the Talmud, or a copy of Sports Illustrated. The point is not where the president’s hand rests when he or she takes the oath, but that the oath be recited, and then carried out.”
On the one hand, I agree that the important thing is the oath is taken and witnessed, but surely the physical presence and physical contact with the Holy (read: authoritative standard) Bible provides a reference for holding the person making the oath accountable. Does it bother anyone else? Do tell. I’m starting to sound like a Fundie conspiracy theorist. There are two questions here though: what ARE the necessary conditions? (touching a Bible doesn’t seem to be regarded as a necessary condition) and what SHOULD the necessary conditions be? And more specifically, do those necessary conditions for becoming president include inaugural traditions like using a Bible or having a Federal Justice administer?
Maybe boring to most. Interesting to me. But it could be historically and culturally important (and potentially indicative of a growing secularism) – if for no other reason that this would be the first time in our history that a president took an OFFICIAL oath of office without the Bible. A precedent, if you will. And maybe this has a lot to do with vocation, or literally, “vocare” – calling. No doubt, Obama’s vocation is tied to this oath. And given the traditional (albeit religious) sense of vocation – something that is God-given, spoken by the Divine, Personal Logos – what might that mean for the official version of the oath? Hmm.
Nevertheless, here’s to a felicitous presidency. Lord help him.
