Last week’s statement by the Archbishop of York in which he accused Israel of ‘genocidal acts’ has brought several critical responses[i], chiefly for his use of emotive and inflammatory language.
It is unfortunately a fact of life in any community that leaders are often tempted to misuse language in a subtle yet powerful way in order to exercise control and keep others submissive to their will. In what follows, I will examine some common techniques and note how scripture also warns of this phenomenon.
“Language is more than a means of communication; it is a powerful tool that shapes perceptions and behaviors. In the political arena, language manipulation can foster misinformation and create narratives that serve those in power. By employing vague or emotionally charged terminology, leaders can influence public opinion, obscure the truth, and justify decisions that might otherwise be unpopular or unacceptable.” [ii]
Politicians are not the only ones to use language as a means of manipulation – any organization, including the church, can be places where elites try to exert control. Pious sounding rhetoric can be used by church leaders to manipulate and even deceive laity. This can be via emotionally charged terminology such as labelling people as ‘Nazis’ or accuse them of ‘apartheid’, or the common use of words such as ‘unity’ ‘inclusion’ and the well-worn favourite, ‘love’.
Spiritual manipulation is extremely serious, especially when Church leaders engage in the practice. Not only can leaders manipulate laity for their sexual gratification (safeguarding is now a major issue in churches because of cases of sexual abuse of church members by their leaders), but it is basically the twisting of proper spiritual authority into an exercise of power, a means of control. It is harmful as it can lead people away from genuine faith into doctrinal error.
There are many examples of manipulation in the Old Testament beginning with Satan’s manipulation of Eve in the garden of Eden. During the time of the Northern Kingdom, Jezebel manipulated her husband, King Ahab. When his attempt to deprive Naboth of his land is rejected by Naboth, he withdraws into a sulk. Jezebel then accosts him, “…do you now govern Israel?”[iii]. She appeals to his sense of personal pride and ego. Put in modern terminology she is asking, “Are you a man or a mouse?”, clearly playing on her husband’s insecurities.
In the Gospels, the Pharisees are singled out for censure by Jesus for several reasons, one being the fact that they were master manipulators who used the Mosaic law to maintain their power and status[iv].
A common method of manipulation is the engaging of people’s emotions in order to persuade them to accept an argument or course of action. These appeals to emotion can be powerful enough to override the use of logical reasoning by the audience. Four common emotions that are appealed to are fear, pity, anger, and the really powerful one – guilt. The following is an example of an emotional appeal:
“Many of our young people have already moved on from the debate, finding it difficult to understand why we can bless their dogs, cats, and guinea pigs in services commemorating St. Francis of Assisi, but not their LGBTQI friends in committed relationships,” [v]
Here the appeal is both to a sense of pity – children and animals are strong sources of pity appeals – but also to a sense of fear. The aim was to put people in a position where they would fear what others might think of them if they showed they valued animals more than human beings. Often used in the push to approve gay blessings is the casting of LGBT people as victims through emotive personal anecdotes which play on a ‘pity’ response or can evoke a guilt response.
Emotive anecdotes have also been used as a core strategy by those who campaign to bring in assisted suicide where reasoned and complex debates are oversimplified, or reason is bypassed altogether[vi].
Also used in the above example is the term ‘committed relationships’. Like words such as ‘unity’, ‘love’, and ‘inclusion’, it is a term capable of a variety of meanings and on the surface is honourable sounding and resonates with the idea of a marriage. However, adulterous, incestuous, and polyamorous relationships can also be committed, but are prohibited in scripture.
Used here as a means of manipulation are what are termed ‘empty signifiers’. This term is used in discourse analysis and semiotics to define words that do not have clear meanings or words that can have different meanings in different contexts and for different audiences[vii]. In the political sphere words such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ are examples.
Empty signifiers are useful tools to rally support for a specific political action or cause. Because they hold different meanings for different people they can be used to build a consensus but also marginalize dissenters. The political theorist and discourse analyst Chantal Mouffe[viii] has shown that in situations of conflict, they are a powerful means of establishing hegemony.
Hegemony is when one group succeeds in dominating another. One way is by influencing the broader community to accept their arguments and proposals. Thus, for example the revisionists in the Episcopal Church (formerly ECUSA) achieved their aim of the broad acceptance of same-sex relationships as a valid Chistian lifestyle. Among the arguments advanced was an appeal to church ‘unity’ – an empty signifier, as it held different meanings for each group. The revisionist understanding of ‘unity’ was ‘unity in pluriform truth’ – i.e. unity was possible between people believing mutually exclusive and contradictory truth claims, as opposed to the orthodox group which believed in unity based on one transcendent truth revealed in holy scripture – in this case the absolute prohibition of same-sex relationships. The revisionist group succeeded in using an empty signifier to ultimately sway a significantly large faction holding power in the denomination and marginalise the orthodox.
Empty signifiers are also called floating signifiers – this conveys the vagueness and non-specificity, the chameleon-like nature of meaning. Illustrative of its slipperiness is the often-used word ‘love’. In arguments to support the blessing of gay unions in Church for example, ‘love’ is a popular empty signifier – as in the slogan “love is love”. The first female same-sex partnered Archbishop of the Church of Wales, Cherry Vann, protests,
“I cannot see how loving somebody as I love my partner could be wrong.”[ix]
Unlike the specificity of Greek words that clearly define what is meant – eros for sexual love, philia for platonic friendship, storge for natural family affection, or agape for divine self-sacrificing love, the English term can signify any of these. Even worse is the use of the phrase ‘God is love’ to validate what the Bible teaches is a sexually immoral behaviour. The phrase from 1 John states God is agape[x] not Eros – Eros is another god. More importantly, nor is he Baal, the Old Testament God of sexual immorality.
Another well-worn empty signifier is the word ‘justice’. It is often used by those who wish to claim moral high ground, for who would not want to be on the side of justice? This is a favourite of the climate apocalypse cult, who call for ‘climate justice’. It was also a slogan of the gay marriage campaigners who demanded ‘marriage justice’ It was an argument framed in terms of equality and justice – ‘equal marriage’ was the slogan in the streets. The campaign for gay marriage was in fact a campaign to alter the definition of marriage. It was a power move to control a social institution by radically redefining it.
Political philosopher Michael Sandell points out that every construal of justice assumes an a priori view of right and wrong and of human nature –it is not empirical, nor is it totally objective, but based on a belief system[xi]. Concepts like ‘equality’ and ‘freedom’ are in the end empty concepts – or in linguistic terms empty signifiers. They are often used as pretexts for advancing another ethic behind which is a hidden belief system. “Justice” is not self-evident, it can only be ascertained when you know the purpose of human beings. As Christians we believe that human purpose is defined by the Creator who has given clear indications of that purpose in scripture.
In biblical Hebrew, the words used for justice are defined as; what is right, righteous, just, and normal. It means the act of deciding a case or decreeing an ordinance. It can also mean being honest and accurate when dealing with weights and measures. And the three primary words used in the Old Testament for justice connote covenant. This means, adhering to the law of the land is important, but not as important as following the rules of the covenant. ‘Justice’ can never mean breaking God’s holy law.
It is incumbent on all believers to expose the use of empty signifiers – and manipulative arguments will collapse. Finally, it is important to note that all of us will be held accountable for our use of language[xii]. In his polemic against the Pharisees Jesus makes this clear,
“I tell you, on the day of judgement people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”[xiii]
__________________________________________________________________________________
[i] https://www.thejc.com/opinion/archbishop-cottrells-genocide-charge-against-israel-is-neither-wise-nor-appropriate-gs56a209; https://www.virtueonline.org/post/archbishop-of-york-suffers-from-foot-in-mouth-disease
[ii] Miguel Ángel Martín Tortabu, “The Labyrinth of Empty Signifiers in Political Discourse”
[iii] 1 Kings 21:7.
[iv] Matt 23:2-7
[v] Archbishop Thabo Makgoba, quoted in The Living Church, https://livingchurch.org/news/news-anglican-communion/s-african-priests-protest-rejection-of-same-sex-blessings/
[vi] https://thecritic.co.uk/death-by-anecdote/
[vii] Post structuralists such as Ernesto Laclau, and Jaques Lacan.
[viii] Chantal Mouffe is Professor of Political Theory at the University of Westminster in London. See Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, “Hegemony and Socialist Strategy”, London, Verso,1985.
[ix] See: First female archbishop in UK defends lesbian lifestyle: ‘Never heard that from God’, Christian Post, https://www.christianpost.com/news/first-female-archbishop-in-uk-defends-lesbian-lifestyle.html
[x] 1 John 4:8.
[xi] Sandell, M, “Justice, What’s the right thing to do?”, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010. Sandell is Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University.
[xii] See also James 3:1-11.
[xiii] Matthew 12:37.