“Iconic representational gestures” are like a gestural onomatopoeia: their physical reality resembles in some way what they signify. For instance, blowing a kiss signifies a kiss, running a finger across a throat signifies a killing, and a baptism signifies cleansing from sin.
An interesting special case of iconic representational gestures is one where the physical reality of the gesture itself itself accomplishes a part of what it represents. A slap in the face is an iconic gesture that represents the punishment that the other party deserves for bad behavior and is itself physically a part of the punishment. Intercourse is an iconic gesture that signifies a union of persons and its physical reality constitutes the physical part of that union. And, on views on which Christ’s body is present in the Eucharist, the reception of the Eucharist is also such an iconic gesture representing union with Christ and physically effecting an aspect of that union. We can call such gestures partially self-representing.
Now, normally meaning gets attached to symbolic acts like words and gestures through other symbolic acts (you point to a “zebra” and say “Let’s call that ‘zebra’”). This threatens to lead to a regress of symbolic acts. The regress can only be arrested by symbolic acts that have an innate meaning. Now, while there is often an element of conventionality even in iconic representational gestures, just as there is in onomatopoeia, nonetheless I think our best candidate for symbolic acts that have an innate meaning is iconic representational gestures. Moreover, if the gesture has an innate meaning, it is plausible that it was used at least as long as humankind has been around.
If we think about the best candidates for such gestures, we can speculate that perhaps pointing or punching has been around as long as humans have been around. But that’s speculation. But it’s not speculation that sex has been around as long as humans have been around. Thus, sex is an excellent candidate for a gesture that has the following features:
iconic representational
partially self-representing
innate meaning.
Moreover, given that the physical aspect of sex is a thorough biological union, it is very reasonable to think that this innate meaning is a thorough personal union. But, as Vincent Punzo has noted in his work on sex, a thorough personal union needs to include a normative commitment for life. And that is marriage. Thus, sex signifies marriage.
10 comments:
I figured the essence of marriage was intercourse, the one body experience. Marriage means consolidation, two become one. The essence of divorce is the going of separate ways. Promiscuity is an absurd act because it involves the simultaneous intention of marriage and divorce.
But then there is our cultural idea of marriage as a vow of lifelong fidelity. Is the implication here then that the normative vow/commitment of lifelong fidelity is FOUND in marriage (intercourse)? Or is the vow/commitment itself the essence of marriage, and intercourse is (among other things) a duty within marriage?
Well, I don't think we want to say that intercourse implies marriage: surely people aren't always married to the first person they have sex with. I think it makes sense to say that intercourse _signifies_ marriage, but that signification can be false.
I am thinking that the vow is the central constituent of marriage, and then intercourse consummates the marriage. It's kind of like the signing a contract is the central constituent of being a professional teacher, but then teaching consummates the employment.
Alex
I think that the idea that the innate meaning of sex is a thorough personal union is demonstrably false. There is no doubt that sex has been around as long as humans have been around (and long before that), but it is not true that sex has had the meaning of a thorough personal union as long as humans have been around.
Personal union entails a mutual commitment by the persons involved and such mutual commitment is a relatively recent development and isn't even present in every culture today.
Moreover, if human beings have libertarian free will, the meaning of a "personal" union is, by definition, personal, which means that whether or not there is a normative commitment depends on the persons.
Walter:
What is your evidence that "it is not true that sex has had the meaning of a thorough personal union as long as humans have been around"?
Note that meaning need not supervene on use, at least not use in the simple empirical sense of "use". Something can have one meaning and be used for something else.
Alex
There are various studies that show that human beings were originally polygamous.
Even in the Old Testament there is evidence that polygamy was widespread.
And even in more monogamous cultures, mutual commitment was hardly ever present. In most cases, the male partner was dominant.
Sure, there may have been exceptions, but it is quite obvious that it is not true that sex has had the meaning of a thorough personal union as long as humans have been around. The idea of a personal union seems to be a fairly recent development.
And I agree that something can have one meaning and be used for something else, but in this case, if the meaning of a thoroughly personal union isn't expressed in a significant use of sexuality for that purpose you don't seem to have any basis for your claim that the innate meaning of sex is a thorough personal union.
Maybe you think it should be, but then you seem to beg the question by arguing that something should be because it should be.
Walter:
The culturally widespread polygamy you're talking about is presumably polygyny. I wouldn't think that either you or I would want to say that polygyny is normative to humans, since it embodies such a significant lack of equality between the sexes.
Note, too, that polygamy is compatible with a lifelong commitment, albeit not with an exclusive lifelong commitment.
Alex
That's my point. Polygyny is not normative to people and neither is polyandry, but the fact that polygyny used to be widespread for most of the time humans have been around is a very strong indication that the claim that the innate meaning of sex is a thorough personal union is false.
If it were true that the innate meaning of sex was a thorough personal union, polygyny would not be so widespread ever since the dawn of mankind, because polygyny is not a thorough personal union and its "lifelong commitment" if it exists is one-sided.
On the other hand, lying is widespread throughout human history, and lying involves using language contrary to its meaning. It's not a perfect parallel, though.
Alex
It is also a matter of proportion. Throughout human history, the personal union aspect of sex, if present, was a tiny minority compared to other uses of sex. But, while I agree that lying has been widespread, telling the truth has also been widespread. I don't know anybody who always lies, but there are plenty of examples of people having sex without even attempting to get a personal union.
I think it's safe to say that the only innate meaning of sex is procreation. That is, there is no reasonable doubt that sex was "meant" for procreation. That does not, however mean that two persons cannot agree to have sex for other reasons.
Question: how can there be "innate meaning" in something?
Some would argue that "meaning" is something conferred upon things by the human mind. I would not, but I do feel I am not quite able to defend my intuitive stance on this issue, thus my question here.
Thanks
Post a Comment