Eschew Obfuscation

A Sermon Delivered by 

The Rev. Thomas Schmidt

January 13, 2008

at the 

Unitarian Universalist Congregation of the Lowcountry

First things first, about the title: Eschew Obfuscation.  I wish I could say that this clever phrase is my own creation, but alas, I merely saw the words on a bumper sticker.  It seemed to me at the time that this phrase is a sermon title just looking for a sermon.  And so, in that spirit, I can only hope that my elucidation of the idiosyncratic nature of the before mentioned ironical phraseology meets the anticipatory feelings of this morning’s assemblage.

I have discovered that there is actually a second part of the phrase that apparently was too long for the bumper sticker.  The full phrase is in fact, “eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation,” “avoid ambiguity, adopt clarity.”  It is the built-in irony that makes the whole thing so much fun, well, fun for those that appreciate the intricacies and absurdities of the English Language such as myself. For those not aware, one may identify a language geek if you will, quite readily by their tendency to pun-ish the general population with unwarranted and unwanted wordplay and have the audacity to laugh at their own puns. . . . . pun-ish the population . . . that’s funny.  Oops.

But seriously, or not, how many remember the old “Calvin and Hobbes” comic strip, where Calvin was an intelligent, impetuous, and somewhat impious young man and Hobbes was his more level headed stuffed Tiger that came to life only when no one else was in the picture. Steven Pinker, in his book, The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature, included a Calvin and Hobbes strip to exemplify a point about language. In this particular strip, Calvin is sitting at a school desk holding a paper and he his expression is clearly one of panic. The words printed above, apparently those printed on the piece of paper “1. Explain Newton’s First Law of Motion in your own words.”  The second frame shows Calvin with an ear to ear grin and an exclamation point over his head, clearly has had a thought.  The third frame shows Calvin busily writing his answer which is printed above, “Yakka foob mog.  Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork.  Chumble spuzz.”  

The final frame has Calvin sitting back in his chair, hands behind his head and a very self-satisfied look on his face as he says, “I love loopholes.”  The point that Steven Pinker is making is that language, words, grammar, syntax, etc. are in fact community property.  While it could be argued that every word had to first be invented, likely by an individual, it is meaningless unless there is some common understanding of what that word means. This, of course, is made all the more difficult by the fact that words, all words, are nothing more than metaphors, symbols that stand in for the real thing.  The word “tree” therefore, is a string of sounds English speakers have learned represents “a woody perennial plant, typically having a single stem or trunk growing to a considerable height and bearing lateral branches at some distance from the ground.”  Defining a physical object, like a tree is rather simple enough process because we can point to or otherwise depict the object visually and say the word that represents that object. However, defining words that stand in for ideas, especially culturally and religiously charged words, like liberal and conservative, worship, god, etc. etc., are made all the more difficult to define as the meaning of these words not only tends to change overt time, they can also have different and even conflicting meanings among individuals living at the same time.  

I have said, and will stand by my words, that every person, regardless of religious affiliation, is a heretic.  Bearing in mind that the word heretic derives from the ancient Greek word for “choose,”  if in fact free will exists, then each and every person either chooses to believe one thing over another.    I have read any number of books on theology and have asked any number of people how they define “god” and have yet to hear the same words used in exactly the same way, unless they happen to be reciting a creed or intentionally quoting another person’s words because they like the way they sound.  So far, the best definition of “god” that I have ever heard and the one that I generally accept is “The word used by many to describe matters of ultimate concerns.”  I like that definition because it purposely does not attempt to define those matters of ultimate concern, which tend to be highly individualized. And this definition  allows everyone to have different opinions, different ideas about “god” while not limiting what “god” can be.  Words are very helpful, but at times can be a hinderance to communication as well.

And of course, language is far more than just the words we use, it also includes the often more subtle forms of communication like tone of voice, body language.  Consider the following story:

It was during the final days at Denver’s Stapleton Airport, which was closed in 1995. 

A crowded flight was canceled and a single agent was rebooking a long line of inconvenienced travelers. Suddenly and angry passenger pushed his way to the desk 

and slapped his ticket down on the counter, saying, “ I have to be on this flight, and it has to be first class.”  The agent replied, “I’m sorry sir.  I’ll be happy to help you, but I’ve got to help these folks first, and I’m sure we’ll be able to work something out.” The passenger was unimpressed.  He asked loudly, so that the passengers behind him could hear, “Do you have any idea who I am?”  Without hesitating, the gate agent smiled and grabbed her public address microphone.  “May I have your attention, please?” she began, her voice bellowing through the terminal.  “We have a passenger here at the gate who doesn’t not know who he is.  If anyone can help him find his identity, please come to the gate.” 

The humor of the story, of course, is derived from the intentional misinterpretation, or obfuscation if you will, on the part of the ticket agent.  Of course, the words “Do you have any idea who I am?” could mean exactly what the ticket agent implied had they been said in another tone of voice or in another setting.

To complicate the art of communication even further, besides the word choice, tone of voice, and body language to consider, there are often cultural nuances to language that some might not be able to pick up on.  For example, “Would you like to come up and see my etchings?” or “Nice store you got there.  Would be a real shame if something happened to it.”  Most of us recognize those phrases for what they are, a proposition and a threat, however one not familiar with these phrases would likely have no idea those seemingly innocent remarks have alternate meanings. It seems to me that eschewing obfuscation, avoiding ambiguity in our various forms of communication is far more difficult than one might imagine.  Based on the evidence, intentional and unintentional obfuscation of meaning is built into our language, even when we exclude the rarely used words like “eschew” and “obfuscate.”  But there is one way many of us obfuscate, obscure, confuse, make unclear, blur, complicate, muddy, and cloud the truth that can be avoided and can help, or at least minimize, confusion in our efforts to communicate with others.  

Probably the best and most profound way one can eschew obfuscation, avoid ambiguity, is to “espouse elucidation,” adopt clarity, especially in relation to one’s own thoughts and feelings. Generally speaking it is much easier to hide behind our words or to avoid certain words, rather than explore the feelings and thoughts that often times cause us some discomfort.  Why be honest about our own thoughts and feelings when it is so easy to hide behind words. When asked, “How are you?” our most common reply is “Fine,” or “Okay,” or some other well rehearsed, unimaginative response. Yet, how often have we replied “Fine” when truly that was not the case.  I Personally don’t think it is always necessary to tell someone how we truly are, but I do believe it is most important that each of us is fully conscious of our own state of being.  

Words are remarkable tools, and like all tools they can be used for good and for ill.  I can think of any number of perfectly good words that unfortunately have been misappropriated, misused and otherwise misconstrued, thus causing well intended people to give them up as though those words were more than merely a metaphor for something else. Now, I am the first to acknowledge the evils carried out in the name of religion; I am the first to acknowledge the many ways religion and religious language has been usurped and used by those seeking power over people and the land; I am the first to acknowledge the irrational nature of much what passes for religion today and always; however I also recognize that what others call religion, what others call god, what others call church, etc., is only incidental to my understanding of those same words. 

When another person tells me they are going to church, their church, which is different than my own, it actually tells me very little about that person’s beliefs, lifestyle, etc.  What it tells me is that they are going to a place where they feel accepted and loved, a place where they go to help them deal with the daily hassles that affect us all.  I  assume that their church differs from mine in matters of practice and belief and I assume that they go to their church for the same basic reason I go to mine, it meets certain needs that cannot be fulfilled anywhere else.  

The bottom line, there are some words that have distinctly different meanings depending on the person using them.  These words are highly dependent on one’s personal experience and often times are invested with considerable emotional energy.  Unlike Calvin’s “own words,” these words do have meaning for other people, meanings different than our own, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.  When we are honest with ourselves, cease avoiding difficult and uncomfortable subjects, we can at least  avoid certain internal ambiguities and adopt personal clarity: eschew obfuscation and espouse elucidation.