Focusing on the idea that a performative utterance is the statement of an action or possible action. The phrase “I love you” comes to mind. This phrase is something that is heard in some form or another in life; whether from a parent, friend or lover. I would image Austin would address this phrase in a similar form that she address the phrase “I do” involved with marriage. The particular “speech act” I love you, could be considered a performative utterance depending on the way one defines and classifies the term love. If it is looked as an action then it would satisfy the requirements of “doing something” ; however if love is consider just a feeling or emotion then in order for it to be considered an performative utterance according to Austin the statement would have to be more like “I will love you” making the action in ‘the promise’ to love. Once decided that this statement is a “speech act” Austin would precede to display the lies the statement contains of the bad faith associated with it. Perhaps Austin would describe how unless the statement was said with full intent it becomes a bad faith and no longer a firm action but a mere utterance.
Chelssa
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that is interesting. I wonder if without the "will" the phrase "I love you" can be considered a performative utterance. Is it possible that the ability to love can only be realised through saying "I love you" ? Can saying "I love you" somehow be a rite of passage into the realm of love and loving? In fact, is it possible that we have become so dependent on language and "truth"--as Nietzsche claims-- that language has become our rite of passage into truth and reality?
ReplyDeleteTaylor