How We Live And How We Have Come To Live That Way

The instrumentality of language is relevant not only to the way one thinks and speaks but also, and more importantly, to how one lives – and is allowed to live. The specificity of how one lives is not easily captured by using different words. What, I think, is missing in our discussion is something that Freud taught us long ago: the unequal access that we human beings have to our language and to the reasons we devise for deceiving ourselves. These are not easily apparent to us precisely because of how our thoughts about our past enter the life we live. There are no essentially good, essentially evil people. It is simply that over time people gradually acquire one kind of character – and the language that goes with it – or another…The state can teach you how to impose your suffering on other human beings but it cannot teach you how to befriend them.

—Talal Asad

Editor’s Note: The above image is a photograph of Talal Asad with a cat. The passage is excerpted from an essay available in the link. I was assigned a lot of reading while pursuing a PhD at Vanderbilt. Among those who helped me toward feeling the moral pinch and the social importance of defining religion the way I do now (perceived necessity), few were as essential as Talal Asad. He showed me that a drone killing is no more or less religious (or political) than a suicide bombing. He also helped me formulate this saying: Policy is liturgy writ large. The piece linked to above includes a story from his childhood (an exchange with his Jewish uncle) which I now see formed his thinking. There’s also some Iris Murdoch on offer which has me wanting to read more Iris Murdoch. Please consider reading the whole thing and applying it to your context. I welcome feedback, but I also ask you to read all of it before offering it. Thanks for hanging in here with me, everyone.