@kennethamy,
kennethamy;113736 wrote:A formal declaration of war (when there were such things) meant that one nation declared war on other nation. But a declaration that I love someone does not mean that I love that person. To declare war is to be at war. But to declare love is not to be in love (nor to love someone). The Austin test is the use of "hereby". "I hereby declare war" is to declare war; but "I hereby love you" is not to love someone.
One may say "I hereby declare war" in jest or one may not be in a position of authority that would make such a declaration effective.
These are examples of what Austin called infelicities. The utterance is still performative but it is "unhappy".
To say "I hereby declare my love for you" can similarly be infelicitous. It could be in jest, or a lie, or spoken as a line in a play. But this does not disqualify the phrase itself from being called a performative.
But does the declaring of love start the love as a declaration of war starts the war? No, you have a point. However, on second thought, just as there is such a thing as a secret undeclared love there is also such a thing as a secret and undeclared war. For example: Does the fact that one nation has not declared war on another nation mean that there is no war even though said nation has invaded that other nation and occupied it slaughtering thousands of people in the process? There is undeclared war and there is undeclared love. Thus if declaring war is performative then declaring love is performative or at least it can not be disqualified from performative status for the reason mentioned.
The act of declaring war or declaring love still does something: it changes the quality of the war or the quality of the love.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace