In classical rhetoric (think the ancient Greek philosophers), “parrhesia” is a figure of thought –– a rhetorical device used to break the monotony of speech and make a piece of rhetoric more convincing by involving the audience. More specifically, though, “parrhesia” is frank, honest, potentially critical speech to an audience that holds power over the rhetor, or an audience to whom the rhetor owes reverence or respect; “parrhesia” is closely related to the idea of boldly speaking truth to power, at risk to oneself. Foucault talks at length about several different facets of “parrhesia.” Paul himself even uses this Greek word (often translated “bold” or “boldness” or “openly”) in 2 Corinthians 3:12, when he tells the people of Corinth: “Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold,” (NIV).
The concept of parrhesia has an obvious connection to the field of journalism. As a student journalist, I think frequently about accountability, responsibility and speaking truth to those who have power. Seeking truth and reporting it (which specifically includes holding those in power accountable), minimizing harm, acting independently and being accountable and transparent — these are the four main tenets to which journalists ought to adhere, according to the Society of Professional Journalists’s Code of Ethics. These concepts all assume that language can do things in the world; this is also a presupposition discourse analysis uses.
Discourse analysis is a field within linguistics that analyzes how language accomplishes things. According to James Gee’s theory of discourse analysis, language itself influences and creates our discourses, our realities. It builds identities, connections and relationships among other things. It makes and reveals figured worlds, which are mental simulations that aid in the formation of efficient decision-making heuristics. The way humans use language can implement, perpetuate and break down systems of power and control.
Further complicating matters is Kant’s view of morality, according to my understanding from Jamie Smith’s Christian Foundations of Modernity class (I did, in fact, check my notes for this). For Kant, to act is within the realm of the phenomenal, which encompasses the body –– the physical. It is a realm bound by rules and therefore a lack of absolute freedom. In contrast, the noumenal is the realm of the mind, of freedom, of morality. But when one tries to translate the noumenal morality and absolute freedom of the mind into the bounded physicality of the phenomenal, the action –– by dint of its existence in the phenomenal –– cannot possibly be purely moral.
Speaking truth to power intends to work for justice and moral action, even as objectivity is often an illusion, and truth and power are themselves slippery things.
If we put these two ideas together, language –– insofar as it accomplishes things in the world –– cannot possibly be purely moral. However, Hegel provides an alternative to this disembodied understanding of morality. For Hegel, to act is often to be guilty, but to be guilty is not a bad thing. To be guilty is to understand one’s obligation to or recognition by a collective, which is the first step toward reconciliation. The concept of “parrhesia,” then, despite the nature of well-meaning manipulation imbued upon it due to its status as a rhetorical device meant to influence an audience, works toward that reconciliation.
Speaking truth to power intends to work for justice and moral action, even as objectivity is often an illusion, and truth and power are themselves slippery things. Current questions of truth, power and accountability are ones I’m now wrestling with, and they have significant implications for the Calvin community. However, the idea that all action (and therefore all language) is imperfect while also being powerful and necessary for reconciliation — when held alongside a deep desire for morality — is comforting to me. Nothing any human does or says will be perfect. Therefore, we must be aware of the power our words hold. We must do our best to use them wisely in a way that seeks truth, rather than attempt to determine or decide it. My responsibility is to use my words carefully and thoughtfully, rather than perfectly.
It has been an honor and a privilege (and occasionally a headache, I won’t lie) to serve as Chimes’ editor-in-chief, as keeper and speaker of “parrhesia.” I pray that I have walked the proper line of boldness and wisdom. Thank you for trusting me with all your stories, those of scandal, and, more importantly, those of quiet, dedicated commitment to both the Lord and our community.