Combative sides form on virtually every issue. Epithets spew out, framing the others as abject evil, worthy of jail, torment, death, and hopefully hell’s fire. To frame contradicting opinions in the public arena as a “war” trivializes the carnage of “war.” To frame conflicts devoid of emotion with similar hyperbole would be absurd. For example, yesterday, I went into the kitchen and had a “war on tuna fish,” because my wife wanted it on crackers and I on whole wheat bread.

The West are the stepchildren of Frederick Nietzsche. In his work “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense,” he argued that language is not a tool for conveying objective truth, which cannot be known, but rather a means for asserting power over others (Grapevine, 1873/2022). He suggested that words are merely symbolic representations of perceptions of reality, and that the meanings of words are determined by those who use them. According to Nietzsche, those who control language can use it to shape the perceptions of others, and thereby gain power over them. This idea has been influential in many fields, including philosophy, linguistics, and literary theory.

The English language has become so bastardized to the point that hyperbole serves where adjectives once drew the attention of the reader.

“My iPad is awesome!”

Really? Does an iPad really inspire fear and wonder, a term once used for deity alone?

Glitterati are notoriously effusive with praise. Fawning toadies praise sashaying luminaries with terms like, “breathtaking” or “gorgeous.”

Whether inflationary expressions are feigned attempts to recalibrate the emotionally dead who have been jaded by visual effects or simply slouching towards Gomorrah, the question begging to be asked is, “What do we do when we run out of superlatives” (Bork, 2003)? Do we become like Dothan of the Tamarians, and create a language based upon nothing but stories and ancient lore (Roddenberry & Menosky, 1991)? Those who have viewed that episode of Star Trek will recall the creature restating over and over, “Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra.” Captain Kirk, the series hero, finally understood it to mean two people on a journey who have a common enemy must work together to defeat them.

Perhaps we will expand our use of metaphors to convey complex emotions and ideas. For example, instead of saying something is “breathtaking,” one could describe it as “a sunset that paints the sky with shades of pink, orange, and red, as if the heavens themselves were on fire.” Instead of brevity being the soul of wit, verbosity will be the soul of clarity.

Another way of communicating might be to use body language and gestures to express emotions and convey meaning. This could include using facial expressions, hand gestures, and other nonverbal cues to convey excitement, awe, or other emotions.

Lastly, one could also resort to using other languages or dialects that have more nuanced vocabulary to express their feelings. This could involve borrowing words from other cultures or creating new words to describe unique experiences.

Perhaps in this “war on Christmas,” for someone to say they believe in God would be the same as saying, “When Picard met the Q Continuum.” If your preference is the action-adventure genre, the person might say, “When Indiana Jones closed his eyes as the Nazis opened up the Ark of the Covenant.”

Like the ancient Greeks, we would all sit around campfires and recite oral traditions like Homer’s Iliad, so we can communicate in a manner that we all understand. We can all be singing from the same sheet music.

Indeed, a common metanarrative that was enjoyed by generations of Americans is now missing. Although Christian theology profoundly disagrees with Derrida on many points regarding his view of differànce, it agrees that an assumed narrative is part of trace knowledge and serves a valuable function (Derrida, 2003). The point of departure, however, is not that it is made up by the individual, but as Thomas Aquinas wrote:

… words are signs of ideas, and ideas the similitude of things, it is evident that words relate to the meaning of things signified through the medium of the intellectual conception. It follows therefore that we can give a name to anything in as far as we can understand it. (Aquinas, 2010, p. 58)

The angst behind the “culture war” language has a deeper significance. It is pining for a loss of common stories. It is the generation that grew up in the 50’s and 60’s, who heard the American stories told many times. The Pilgrims came to America seeking religious freedom. George Washington was a great statesman and general. God intervened to help us overcome British rule. The Founding Fathers were great men, highly intelligent, and wanted to ensure that all Americans be free from the tyranny of government. Many of these ideals were gaged by those found in the Bible, as the ethos of Americans still held it to be a true and accurate portrayal of history.

American iconoclasts have muddled the metanarrative. Sixties rockers who felt betrayed by the Vietnam War raged against the Establishment. The new avante garde was to pull down any previously held notion of truth, beauty, and goodness. Thus, George Washington was a slave-owning racists. The founding of America was setup to secure white and aristocratic privilege. The history of early America is one of racism, sexism, and homophobia. The pilgrims came to force Christendom upon the unwitting, through genocide if necessary.

Like a scratch on a cherried-out ’33 Buick, crushed icons of the American ideal have marred the body politic beyond recognition. Without a widely held unifying metanarrative like that provided by the Bible for the first two-hundred years, factions have raced to fill the vacuum with endless historical revisions.

In summary, this satirist asserts that the futile attempt to restore the American ideal without the unifying Judeo-Christian metanarrative. Without a massive shift in public opinion like that of the Great Awakening, it is a mere schoolyard spat about who gets to play with the soccer ball.  Or to put it in a way that others can understand it, “It is like when Truman steps out of Seahaven and realizes his entire life has been a farce” (Weir, 1998). Or better yet, “It is like when Neo takes the red pill from Morpheus” (Machowski & Machowski, 1999).

References

Aquinas, T. (2010). Summa theologica. Complete & Unabridged. Coyote Canyon Press. Kindle Edition.

Bork, R. (2003). Slouching towards gomorrah: Modern liberalism and american decline. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Derrida, J. (1997). Of grammatology. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Machowski, A. Machowski, L. (March 31, 1999). The matrix. Warner Brothers Studio. Burbank, CA.

Nietzsche, F. (1873/2022). On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense [Kindle]. Retrieved from Amazon.com

 

Niccol, A. (June 5, 1998). The Truman show. Universal Studios. Universal City, CA.

Roddenberry, G., Menosky, J. (Executive Producers). (

Roddenberry, G., Menosky, J. (Executive Producers). (September 28, 1991). Darmok. Star Trek: The next generation. Season 5, Episode 2. Paramount Pictures. Los Angeles, CA.

Weir, P. (1998). The Truman Show. Paramount Pictures.