Another Thought About Halakha and Linguistics

[debka_notion]

Maybe this is old hat- but it just struck me that a lot of the dispute about halakha and especially how it is seen in the Conservative Movement is very much akin to the linguistic debate between prescriptive and descriptive linguistics. A serious difference of approach seems to go on between those folks who see halakha as prescriptive- and if you don't fit the way it says you should do something, you're wrong, and those who see it as eventually mostly descriptive- this is what people whom we think are good Jews (often meaning the people speaking) do, and if halakha doesn't fit this, then it should change.

Maybe this is just another way of trying to break people into two camps. But I think even as endpoints of a spectrum, it's an interesting idea to explore. Thoughts?

Comments

[carnilius.livejournal.com]

I disagree. One big difference is that language is learned in early years, and it is very difficult to change how it is used at a conscious level; religion, on the other hand, starts out as purely prescriptive and then conscious choices can be made later on when one understands better.

Plus, prescriptive linguistics is just plain wrong. ;-)

[debka-notion.livejournal.com]

Does religion really start out as prescriptive? I'd think it starts out as experiential- heck, even in our very prescriptive religion, a baby has nothing that it has to do or not do itself. Then it gets prescriptive beyond the point that a kid can really understand, but then, one of the purposes of religion is to be beyond total comprehension, I think.

But really, I was making more of an analogy as to how people Talk about the two systems and how they do regard them from a conscious perspective, more than which linguistic anaylsis system is right or wrong. I mean, the halakha/Jewish text as language metaphor is great, but one can push it only so far... (After that, all you're left with is a collar and a few buttons.)