Semantic Superficial Singularity: A Semiotic Response to the Political Extremism

By: Jonathan Seidel

The polarised dialectic: How semantic opinions trigger a more divisive society and the lack of a nuanced views.  

The world today is fixated in a polarised society. It is divisive and constrained. The climate is a hot mess of screaming and crying. It is a bunch of toddlers yearning for a lost toy. Opinions are emotionally charged and reflect a stake in the picture despite the fallacious rationality. People are rigid and tied to tribalistic warfare. The dignity of plurality is null and void. Any resistance is responded with terroristic horror. Take any example: pro-abortion means murderer and anti-abortion is misogny. Pro-Israel means occupation and anti-Israel is anti-semitic. The fervent attacks are nonsensical because most people are not extreme. There are groups but it is not the majority. This climate endorses extremes and absolutes but it is not the norm.    

How do we recover nuance? We do so by respecting multivocality. There is a fascinating theory posed by Jackson coined biblical semiotics. He argues that reading texts literally misconstrues the law. The law is not absolute but nuanced. It is the social background that understands the mimetic tradition. The community knows that eye for an eye is figurative but displays an emotive lesson. Based on surrounding texts that describe monetary compensation ascribes the same conclusion to talion law. Synchronic normatively facilitates a larger picture. There is more malleability and diversity instead of opposite ends of pole. 

How does this operate in the real world. If we construe Jackson’s (Umberto) semiotic  view lends to a broader picture. Language is limited. If someone is pro-abortion that still may mean they are anti-late term abortions or classically a pro-lifer has exceptions like rape and incest. It isn’t even so much the backlash but sentences do not explain exactly the position of the other. What does one mean by their position. Opinions are consolidated into few terms but they are not exactly as the absolute definition. I am a libertarian but I am not an anarchist. I even support some sort of public health option. My libertarianism is much more of a value point that a systematic point. Middle ground positions are necessarily accepted. There is a convoluted element to opinions. Whether in favour or against, there is more of a possibility that the individual struck a  mental compromise. 

Many will point to the diversity of the Talmud—legitimate theoretical even practical pluralism. The respect fo reach other’s positions even if disagree connotes a wider acceptance of diversity. This talmudic lesson is critical. Validating alternatives even contradicting ones. Voltaire famously said that I may disagree with you but I will defend your right to say it. The exegetical arc of Judaism regulates the sample sentence as part of a broader framework. One does not hold by the semantic but does by the semiotic. We lurk to the complimenting terminology but it lacks the nuance. The hermeneutical analysis harbours a sliding framework that frames model variety in a single frame behind the scenes. 

The sages embarked on a prolonged game wherein stalemate was not an option. In my own analysis it seems that midrash did precede mishnah. In this vein mishnah/rebbe’s structure was a blip in history (until Maimonides copied it). Inter-biblical exegesis marks the earliest midrashic usage and form of furtherance. Religiosity can’t remain stale, it must grow. It will do so by outpouring new interpretations. Society shifts whether forward or backward. There is an inevitable change that needs complimenting. The statutory order is the greatest crime as it fundamentally undermines the expansion and proper application of law. Law is conventional gradually exposing itself to new trends and furthering its complexity. Exegesis is used to teach new lessons in new generations whether it be Akiva or Sacks. It provides a model renewed outlook on life and Judaism at large. 

Exegesis is a pivotal element of the postmodern agenda. Today the dialectic is us vs them. We have forfeited the third party. The American libertarian movement is a small dot in the larger political picture. People fall into two different groups. Even in Israel, a diverse multi-partied system, there is a regent of sliding one way or the other. Lurking to either side is not the same as abiding by that side. But there is excessive cow-towing to the larger extremes. 

If exegesis is this salvation prophecy, how does it help the public and how can it be restored? I obviously do not mean for lecturers to travel around the world exhibiting the power of exegesis but there is a similar route. The goal is to make people think, to critically analyse. Jordan Peterson is famous for preaching biblical stories as developmental lessons. As Peterson notes it is not only to inspire but to influence. Peterson’s model is exegetical. He takes stories and adds a contemporary swing to it. He is the christian Sacks. The narratives embodied display nuance and complexity. Inscribing dynamic narratives shifts to a more diverse reading. The possibility of multiplicity and nuance furthers a deeper analysis. Peterson’s lectures are rooted in religious texts but they are fundamentally existentially relevant. It compels people to find value in his speech. There are opposers who radically misrepresent him but it is the onset of providing an alternative outlet that converges the extremes. His terminology may be academic but his lessons are elementary. 

Victory is compounded by offering alternatives. Peterson’s biblical narratives are a start. Another example of Peterson’s excellence is in his defining of terms. He spends time deeply explaining his position instead of providing a simplistic answer. Never be afraid to offer a semiotic outlet. Political multivocality is necessary for this shift. Recovering a deeper analysis is revived by dmcs. By extending an olive branch. People need to discuss their positions extensively. Move past single sentences and into emotive paragraphs. It is not simply more voices but more nuanced ones. As noted multi-party countries though various agendas cave to hallow singularity. The more convicted nuance involved the better. On the surface one may phrase a certain way. I am pro gay marriage or abortion but I do not think the government should legislate it. The responder needs to explain him/herself. It is not enough to supply a four word answer but a deeper dive. The semantic cause is mitigated by the statuary limited consciousness of the masses. We hear what we want and move on. We do not dig deeper. Jackson’s semiotics reminds us that there is more than meets the eye. Take the Texas abortion law. The liberal cry was due to its misogynistic and anti-women attack but if you ask them they’ll say it’s to save a life. From their purview abortion is murder. So  being anti-abortion is really dialectically pro-baby. The debate is pro-abortion or pro-life not pro-abortion and anti-women. Whatever the narrative may be the loss of an extended conversation or assuming a position is dangerous. There needs to be a revival of returning to complexity. It is okay to be oscillating. 

For Jews this is ever important. These lessons enable such diversity and complexity. We want complication not simplicity. A dignity to other and intellectual honesty will fervently recover an extended conversation detailing the nuances in the opposing position.