"Hard" vs. "Soft" language

[sophiaserpentia]

A lot of difference in opinion and understanding comes down to a difference in style of interpreting the way words, labels, and concepts hold meaning. There's a generally "soft" or "fuzzy" way, and there's a "hard" way.

The "soft/fuzzy" way means that a word, concept, idea, label, points to a perceived pattern or persistence. It is meant as a loosely-descriptive term to illustrate how we think a thing we perceive fits into the way the world works.

The "hard" way means that a word, concept, idea, label, not only points to perceived patterns, but when applied to something concrete, is assumed to tells us things about the referent that we didn't know before.

In other words, in the "soft" way of using a word, the word does not affect our perception of the object. We do not expect the object to fit the mold of the word, label, concept exactly. So discovering that the word does not apply in every aspect of its meaning does not automatically disqualify the word as a term of reference for it. In contrast, the "hard" way of using a word involves a kind of inflexibility towards things we have yet to learn about the referent.

This is kinda abstract and imprecise, so let me get specific. Take, for example, the word "heterosexual." In the "hard" sense of the word, this refers to people who never, ever have any sexual interest in people of the same sex. In the "soft" sense, it gives us a general idea about a person's preferences, life, and actions, but does not stop applying if the person reveals that he once had an 'interesting' weekend.

This distinction can extend out to interpreting statements in general. A number of the debates i've had regarding religion, and specifically the interpretation of scripture, come down to differences in word-use style. I tend to read statements in more of a "soft" or "fuzzy" way. Some of the people with whom i've debated religion use a "hard" style. Here's an example:

[John 14:6] Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
[7] If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

The "hard" style sees a clear statement of inclusion and exclusion here. And this is how many or most of us are taught to read scripture -- because the "hard" style insists that words have precise meanings and therefore we should expect precision from statements. A "soft" style does not necessarily see this passage as being about inclusion or exclusion, but rather, as illustrative instruction.

Comments

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yes, i don't mean to draw a "hard" distinction between "hard" and "soft." Some degree of imprecision, or precision, is built into every term. But some people read different words to different degrees of precision and this is where a lot of confusion comes from, especially that kind of disagreement which people call "semantic."

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Another aspect of this, especially with regards to labels that describe people, is where problems arise because the label starts to drive the way a person is expected to act or think. "Oh, i'm gay/Buddhist/a man/butch/female/black, so i should X (or shouldn't Y)." That comes from a "hard" use of the labels as driving one's identity in ways that cause people a lot of stress. The label may have originated as a way of describing people in general, but when it becomes a part of people's identity or politics it causes these kinds of stresses that don't really seem to do anyone any good.

[cennetig.livejournal.com]

This is a continueing issue for me and I posted about it the other day. Im still shopping around for better ways of thinking about "things". Do you have any suggestions for reading that expands on the ideas from your main post and/or this particular smaller area from your comment.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Actually, i don't know many people who are writing about this. Most thinkers these days are caught up in identity politics, and especially in the realm of sexual politics the stakes have become very high so it's not a popular strain of thought. The only book i can think of which touches on the idea of rebelling against identity politics is Kate Bornstein's Gender Outlaw.

[el-christador.livejournal.com]

Russian (and I presume other languages using the Cyrillic alphabet) has a "hard sign" and a "soft sign". One could append them to words in English as indicators of when a "hard" or "soft" usage is intended.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I like that idea very much. I believe it was Derrida who employed a strikethrough to draw attention to the limitations of terms or labels; this would correspond to the "soft" style of reading a word.

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

I see what you're saying here, but my typical understanding of the problems in interpreting John 14:6 are that they are cultural problems: that is, not so much associated with a universal style of interpretation, as with the associations to a given word or phrasing which most readily come to the reader's mind depending on that reader's culture and experience.

For example, the Christological notion of hypostatic union (of Man and God) is the first thing that comes to my mind when I read this passage, because of the cultural elements I have been exposed to. Reading the passage in this light is in no sense a 'soft' interpretation from my point of view. To me, this hypostatic union is a very specific idea which is very explicitly associated with the language and phrasing being used here.

As we know all too well, the first associations of people approaching this text with different backgrounds will be quite different.

I think where your idea of interpretive styles may come in is perhaps before this -- in opening up the reader's mind to the idea that their mental associations to a text are not intrinsic to it, but rather functions of their cultural experience; and thus encouraging them to explore other such experiences in the pursuit of understanding the text.

[inkyblue2.livejournal.com]

yes, exactly.

[felisarcanum.livejournal.com]

Off-topic:

When I discovered there was a Gnostic Map (http://www.frappr.com/gnostics) for Gnostics of any sort to mark their locations on, you were the first person I thought of to specifically inform. And so, that's what I just did.