Speech Act Theory and Postmodernism

Speech act theory says that we do things when we talk. In other words, we warn, we command, we apologize, we greet, we question, etc. When I say, "Look out!" I am acting. The action is me warning my friend that there is a car coming. This is a historical event; it is an action that has occured. Every speech act has more than words (locution, as it is called). Speech acts also have context (illocution - the energy and force of the speech act). The words "look out!" are the locution (i.e. the words), the context of my friend standing in the road while there is an oncoming car that he does not see is the illocution (i.e. context - or my intention). My friend jumping out of the road is the desired effect, or perlocution. Locution, illocution, and perlocution are the three parts of a speech act and of verbal communication.

The criticism of postmodernism towards traditional literary knowledge is that words only can point to other words and never connect with fixed reality and knowledge. When you look up a definition of a word in a dictionary, you will only find other words. These other words point to other words. The argument is that there is an infinite chain of signs (words) pointing to other signs (words) that never connect with reality. Therefore fixed literary knowledge is impossible.

Of course, this is obviously utterly hypocritical, as moderns enjoy pointing out. The irony is that postmoderns are standing on fixed literary principles to say there are no fixed literary principles. The only absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth. This is ironic and hypocritical.

But besides pointing out postmodern hypocrisy, how do we respond to their criticism?

I think speech act theory is key. If we understand that authors do things when they write, then writing is not some free interplay of signs, but it is a historical event. For instance, when Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote their Gospels they were testifying that Jesus is the Christ, that he is Lord, that salvation is by him, etc. It was an action.

To deny this is to deny a historical event. Postmoderns may feel the liberty to create meaning with a text, but they wouldl not say that I read a book when, in fact, I ate a sandwich. But according to speech act theory, denying history is the same as denying authorial intention. There is more to communication than words; there is context. What is the context of the Bible and literature? Genres. Genres have fixed rules. They are time-capsules for the speech-acts of the biblical authors.

What are biblical authors doing? Ultimately, they are testifying that Jesus is the Messiah and that salvation is through faith in him alone. Denying that the Bible means this is denying the historical event and action of the writing of the canon.