« Why do the Cato Institute and Randy Barnett care about federalism? | Main | The FBI's "special file room" »
Monday, March 29, 2010
Institutional symbolic counter-speech
Sport represents the only occasion in which adults regularly participate in patriotic symbolic rituals and ceremonies, such as the singing of the national anthem. I have written a great deal about the free-speech liberty to engage in patriotic symbolic counter-speech--declining to participate or engage with the symbol or its associated rituals or otherwise using (or not using) the ritual to protest the symbol and its message.
An interesting twist on symbolic speech and counter-speech is playing out at the institutional level at Goshen College, an Anabaptist-Mennonite liberal arts college that plays in NAIA. For years, Goshen has not played the national anthem before home sporting events, believing that the song conflicts with the Mennonite traditions of pacifism and anti-militarism (the lyrics celebrate a war and a military battle) and objections to excessive nationalism or pledging allegiance to anything other than God.
But the school has spent more than two years rethinking and debating that policy, ultimately which has drawn criticism from some visitors to the school. The school finally decided to play an instrumental version before home games, beginning with a baseball and softball game played last week. The decision continues to provoke discussion, disagreement, and debate among college administration, alumni, and faculty.
This is an interesting resolution--in part because no one is quite happy. It seems to address the pacifism concerns, excluding the militaristic lyrics, but not necessarily the nationalism concerns, which would seem to reject any song honoring country, regardless of lyrics. I presume this is why playing an alternative song--America, the Beautiful (Ray Charles version)would be my preference--never has been an option and was not the chosen option now.
By agreeing to play the song at sporting events that it sponsors and hosts, Goshen as an institution is engaging in symbolic speech--promoting the symbol and its meaning through the pre-game ceremony. Goshen's message is slightly altered by using only the instrumental version and not associating itself with the lyrics. Now we see what (if any) symbolic counter-speech follows in response. Interestingly, in this case, it could come from both directions. Those who disagree with the new policy may refuse to participate in the symbolic ritual by refusing to stand during the song or by turning away from the flag. Those who believe the new policy does not go far enough may take it on themselves to sing the lyrics as a way of both giving a fuller endorsement to the complete patriotic message (whatever additional meaning comes from the lyrics) and of protesting Goshen's decision not to go farther with the anthem.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on March 29, 2010 at 08:01 AM in First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Sports | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef0133ec49ba89970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Institutional symbolic counter-speech:
Comments
Thoughtful post. Although I speak as an outsider to Goshen and this controversy, I do have a quibble with the (tentatively-framed) suggestion that the school’s new policy of an instrumental-only anthem does “not necessarily [address] the nationalism concerns, which would seem to reject any song honoring country, regardless of lyrics.”
Although it’s possible to argue that Christian respect for all persons requires such a rigorously cosmopolitan stance, I think this story (as reported) only makes sense if “honoring country” is viewed by many of the Goshen Mennonites as not only reconcilable with pacifism and equal regard for all persons but also as *desirable*.
For probably as long as they’ve existed, Mennonites (like Quakers) have had a problem with being perceived as not “honoring country” because of their conscientious objection to particular state policies (above all, use of military force), and because of their insistence that allegiance to God trumps allegiance to state. However, this perception of disloyalty doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about Mennonite attitudes and actions toward the state when there aren’t clearly-conflicting imperatives. (Not to say there is a single Mennonite position over time.) For example, American Mennonites and Quakers took a nose-dive in popularity after the American Revolutionary War because they had refused to fight. It was easy to cast them all as Tories even if some supported American Independence because it was too hard to separate out the violent means that were apparently necessary to the end.
In the present controversy, all of the Goshen statements (as provided in the media) seem precisely aimed at finding a way to “honor country” without supporting violence or “excessive nationalism”. For example, one of the Goshen profs who opposes the policy change says that Mennonite-Anabaptist beliefs “often are misunderstood as a lack of appreciation for the country”. She suggests Mennonites have been better at *doing* things for the country (e.g. service during national disasters) but have done a poor job of *expressing* gratitude for American life. The trick is to find a symbol to express gratitude and honor without also endorsing the military or allegiance to state over God. So your search for an alternative song seems entirely simpatico with Goshen’s deliberations about modifying the anthem ban (although the Ray Charles lyrics I found on the web actually *do* keep a bit of the pro-war wording about “liberating strife”).
Related to the “honoring country” theme (in part animating that theme) is an inclusion theme. For example, the Goshen president speaks of the new policy as an “act of hospitality” towards those who were upset with Goshen’s previous ban on the anthem. A cynical interpretation could be that he has cravenly capitulated to the anti-Goshen red-baiting rants (my first read of the situation). But it’s all too easy to construe a peace-making gesture from strength as capitulation out of weakness. And the press accounts don’t provide evidence for the cynical read. Instead, the new policy is described as incorporating positive re-affirmations of pacifism and universalism, e.g. the following of the instrumental-only anthem with a reading of the Prayer of St. Francis (“Lord make me an instrument of your peace”).
I suspect the real problem with the new policy (if there is a problem) is clumsiness or naivete about social meaning. Goshen thought it could bowdlerize the anthem by disassociating itself from the violence in the lyrics and by providing other contextual cues about pacifism (a simplistic kind of re-mix?) As another Goshen prof who favors the policy change says of the anthem: “[I]t does not have a fixed, inherent meaning.” But your post’s univocal formulation may be more accurate: “Goshen as an institution is engaging in symbolic speech--promoting the symbol and its meaning”.
How many people really can hear the anthem and not think of the war-lauding lyrics? And won’t there always be some in the audience who are voicing the lyrics with full approval? Or maybe the defenders of the new policy fully expected this pluralism of reception, and can defend it as long as the institution is always making it clear where it stands in the conversation? (So, some non-pacifists at the games approvingly reflect upon the lyrics when the anthem is played, but then they have their attention drawn for at least a split-second to the school’s disagreement with those lyrics.) Also,it may be important that Goshen put forward the new policy as itself an experiment that would be subject to more community dialogue (a policy choice which could itself be subject to interpretation as craven see-where-the-winds-blow or as principled, maybe even elegant).
Posted by: KN | Mar 29, 2010 7:31:43 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.