The Sociopragmatics of Zealotry in Religious Speech

Dr. Hawraa Jabbar Rahi

Department of English, College of Education for Human Sciences, University of Karbala, Karbala, Iraq

Abstract

The present study investigates how zealotry is manifested in religious speech through the lens of sociopragmatics to inspect the reflection of social variables on the use of pragmatic strategies. Zealotry is particularly selected because it has not been given adequate attention by researchers, precisely from a sociopragmatic point of view, as far as the researcher could investigate. Hence, this knowledge gap needs to be bridged by socipragmatically examining zealotry in religious discourse. This study, thus, attempts to achieve the following aims: identifying the criteria that pragmatically best indicate zealotry in religious discourse; specifying the pragmatic strategies used to reflect zealotry in religious discourse; and finding out the effect of the social variables of religion and power on the manifestation of zealotry in religious discourse. In step with its aims, this study hypothesises that: oppositeness, negativeness of the other side, egotism, affront, incitement, hostility, intimidation, and hate speech are the pragmatically best criteria that indicate zealotry in religious discourse; the pragmatic strategies of negative speech acts and impoliteness strategies can be used by zealots to reflect zealotry in religious discourse; and the social variables of religion and power highly affect the manifestation of zealotry in religious discourse as reflected in the zealots’ preferences for the use of certain types of pragmatic strategies rather than the others. To achieve its aims, the present study follows certain steps: it briefly reviews the relevant literature about the sociopragmatics of zealotry and its pragmatic strategies; develops a model of zealotry to analyse the data of this study; analyses ten extracts qualitatively utilizing the model developed in the present study for this purpose; and discusses the findings to arrive at some conclusions. The present study ends up with a variety of conclusions, the most central of which is that zealotry in the context of religious discourse is pragmatically identified by certain criteria and manifested by various pragmatic strategies and it is socially affected by means of some social variables including region and power.

Keywords: Zealotry, Sociopragmatics, Religious Speech

(To Download PDF File of This Full Article in full Details, Click Here)

1. Introduction

Using language to reflect zealotry against Muslims in Palestine is the major theme presented in the sermon “Pray for Israel” by Pastor Greg Locke. This sermon is considered a trend and one of the most popular sermons during the Palestinian cause, in which language is employed in the context of ideological politics to communicate the power, dominance, and control of Israel over other nations. This study attempts a sociopragmatic analysis to explore the extent to which language is sociopragmatically utilized to manipulate rather than to illuminate. Within a sociopragmatic perspective, language is seen as a means of controlling minds and shaping attitudes. This study, thus, tries to provide a sociopragmatic analysis of the strategies employed to achieve zealotry in religious discourse and to explore the ways through which language is subjugated to issues of religion and power that fit the goals of its users. Its main concern is to show how religious discourse reflects zealotry and asserts it in this sermon.

1. 1. The Problem of the Study

Zealotry deserves scholarly investigation because it, as Olson (2007: 685) argues a severely understudied concept. In the field of sociopragmatics, zealotry derives its sharpness from its status as a sociopragmatic phenomenon, which can be manifested by the use of various pragmatic strategies in various social settings. However, it is an oft-neglected concept that needs to be introduced into the sociopragmatic analysis. Thus, there has been an insufficient study of zealotry from the sociopragmatic point of view and this knowledge gap has motivated the present study to bridge it by sociopragmatically studying zealotry. Hence, the present study makes an attempt to answer the following questions:

1. What are the criteria that pragmatically best indicate zealotry in religious discourse?
2. What are the pragmatic strategies used to reflect zealotry in religious discourse?
3. How do the social variables of religion and power affect the manifestation of zealotry in religious discourse?

 

1. 2. The Aims of the Study

The present study basically invokes the following aims as far as the sociopragmatics of zealotry in religious discourse is concerned:

1. Identifying the criteria that pragmatically best indicate zealotry in religious discourse.
2. Specifying the pragmatic strategies used to reflect zealotry in religious discourse.
3. Finding out the effect of the social variables of religion and power on the manifestation of zealotry in religious discourse.

 

1. 3. The Hypotheses of the Study

In light of these questions and aims, this study hypothesizes that:

1. Oppositeness, negativeness of the other side, egotism, affront, incitement, hostility, intimidation, and hate speech are the criteria that are pragmatically best indicate zealotry in religious discourse.
2. The pragmatic strategies of negative speech acts and impoliteness strategies can be used by zealots to reflect zealotry in religious
3. The social variables of religion and power highly affect the manifestation of zealotry in religious discourse as reflected in the zealots’ preferences for the use of certain types of pragmatic strategies rather than the others.

 

2. Sociopragmatically Theorizing Zealotry in Religious Discourse

2.1. Sociopragmatically Defining Zealotry

Zealotry occurs when an individual extends their religious, cultural, or political conviction to an extreme extent, displaying an unwillingness to accept alternative viewpoints or conflicting beliefs. Religious speech is directed at some individuals in a given environment as a means to direct and guide the life of the intended individuals (Morris, 1971: 225). Zealotry conflicts with free speech, as Hamilton (1995: 56), illuminates, in the sense that zealotry lacks the ability “to seriously entertain the possibility that one might be wrong”. It can be argued that zealotry in religious discourse can be a love-like passion and an anger-like emotion. As a love-like passion, religious zealotry can express a kind of loving devotion to a particular religious idea. As an anger-like emotion, zealotry is a state of mind that is intentionally directed towards people from other religions or their ideas. It may cause actions aiming at vengeance or hostility towards others, as pointed out by Hardon (2013: 537). Zealots consider themselves the only ones who possess the truth. They may not accept differences of opinion, tolerance, or open-mindedness. Hence, zealotry can operationally be defined as any conduct by which the speaker intends to create, promote, or increase animosity towards another religious group.

2. 2. Sources of Zealotry

Zealotry comes from different sources that can be represented by various strategies depending on areas where zealotry is practiced. These sources can be religious, political, or social. The present study is concerned with the religious source of zealotry. Religious single-mindedness can be regarded as the main source of zealotry sectarianism because some religious practitioners or pastors consider their religion as the best and only right path. Zealot religious leaders normally misrepresent or misinterpret religious texts, a matter which can surely lead to certain a kind of religious discrimination.

2. 3. Defining Criteria of Zealotry in Religious Discourse

In order to recognize zealotry in religious discourse, there must be some criteria that clearly define zealotry in religious texts. In this case, this study suggests the following clues:

2.3.1. Oppositeness

This criterion indicates a kind of conflict between two groups of opposing religious orientations who have different legal rights and responsibilities. This criterion is of serious contention because the difficulty caused where the rights to religious freedom, for example, conflict with other rights or interests, such as rights to equality on the same grounds especially when people of different religions live together on the same ground (Vickers, 2016: 9).

2.3.2. Negativeness of the Other Side

This criterion can be indicated by the speaker’s native attitude and tendency towards people from other religions by using utterances that degrade, agitate or show, in one way or another, hatred attitude, grudge, or bigotry towards another religion.

2.3.3. Egotism

Egotism is self-centredness and it means, as Hobson (2004: 147) points out, thinking and talking about oneself excessively because of an undue sense of self-importance without regard for the feelings or desires of others.

.3.4. Affront

Affront, as Beaven (2017: 113) indicates, means considering the other side as beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving of scorn. It articulates ideas relating to moral inferiority or non-humanity.

2.3.5. Incitement

Incitement means publicly using certain expressions that trigger discrimination, hostility, or violence against others. Incitement to violence justifies and glorifies violence and conveys the speaker’s aversion towards the targets. It also reinforces the speaker’s social prejudice and intolerance towards the targets.

2.3.6. Hostility

Hostility can be reflected in speech that causes the victim harm, such as loss of self-esteem, physical and mental stress, social and economic subordination and effective exclusion from mainstream society (Guillén-Nieto: 2023: 3).

2. 3.7. Intimidation

Intimidation, as (Guillén-Nieto, 2023: 44) defines it, is a type of threat by which a speaker directs a threat to others for the sake of causing them fear of harm or death. Intimidation means causing others to fear in order to force them to take an action that they may not want to take.

2. 3. 8 Hate Speech

Hate speech, as Ward (1997: 765) defines, is “any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against their targets”.

(To Download PDF File of This Full Article in full Details, Click Here)

. Methodology

The data of this study is represented by a trendy sermon entitled “Pray for Israel” by Pastor Locke who is a prominent Christian pastor in Tennessee, a state in the United States of America. Pastor Locke is an Islam-hating zealot. In this sermon, Pastor Locke made an alarming speech by calling for violence in Gaza and the destruction of the Dome of the Rock. This sermon is found in form of video taken from the official website of and transcribed by the researcher herself. Zealotry in religious discourse requires the activation of four axes; the zealot speaker, the zealot discourse, the audience (the in-group) and the target group (the out-group). In this study, the zealot speaker is the pastor himself who delivers zealot discourse as represented by his sermon which is directed to his congregation in the church, and this zealot sermon is targeted towards Muslims, in general, and Palestinians, in particular, who as considered as the out-group, as depicted in Figure (1) below:

Zealot Speaker Pastor

Zealot Discourse Sermon

Audience In-Group Congregation

Target Group Out-Group

Figure (1): Communicating Zealotry in Religious Discourse

In this study, Searle’s (1976) taxonomy of speech acts is adapted to include the negative speech acts to make it suitable for the purpose of this work. Also, Culpeper’s (1996) and Culpeper and Terkourafi’s (2017) impoliteness strategies are adapted to indicate the zealot’s use of strategic language for face-threatening purposes using certain strategies oriented to face attack and aimed at social disruption. The model is a top-down model that works from top to bottom where the two phases of this model; namely, identification and analysis, have a vertical sequence. First, it starts with the identification of the criteria of zealotry. Second, it moves to the analysis where zealotry is depicted in terms of some pragmatic strategies. The proposed model is clearly sketched in Figure (2) below:

(Identification) Defining Criteria of Zealotry in Religious Discourse

Oppositeness

Negativeness of the Other Side

Affront

Incitement

Hostility

Intimidation

Hate Speech

Egotism

(Analysis) Pragmatic Strategies of Zealotry in Religious Discourse

Negative Types of Speech Acts (that trigger Zealotry) –        Threatening –        Intimidating –        Insulting –        Humiliating –        …………..

Impoliteness Strategies (that are oriented to Zealotry) –        Bald on record impoliteness –        Positive impoliteness. –        Negative impoliteness. –        Mock politeness

Zealotry

Figure (2): A Model of Zealotry in Religious Discourse

Figure (2): A Model of Zealotry in Religious Discourse

Extract (1)

“I will bless them that bless Israel and I will curse them that curse Israel”.

This extract indicates zealotry since it is defined by the criterion of oppositeness. It indicates a mixture of two speech acts which are blessing and cursing respectively as used by Pastor Locke. It depicts that Christians in America are strong supporters of Israel as they bless any group that bless Israel and curse any group that curse Israel. In this way, positive impoliteness is also activated as he denies any kind of association or common ground with others.

Extract (2)

“All the land belongs to Israel”.

This extract is defined by egotism as an indication of zealotry as Pastor Locke considers Israel better and more important than others through the use of speech act of asserting. Positive impoliteness is also triggered in this extract because Pastor Locke damages the positive face wants of all the non-Israeli nations by damaging their needs to be approved of, liked, or admired.

Extract (3)

“Any nation that turns against the Jewish people is in the sewer dump of history. Any individual that turns against the Israeli Nation, any church, any community, any group, any sect, any denomination that has ever come out against the nation of Israel is in the sewer dump”.

This extract is characterized by the criterion of affront which is intended to insult and offend any nation that turns against the Jewish people. Affront is demonstrated by the use of the speech act of threatening which is utilized here to frighten people into believing that they will be seriously harmed in the future if they turn against the Jewish people and the Israeli nation. In this sense, Pastor Locke calls for the annihilation of all non-Jews. Additionally, this extract indicates negativeness of the other side when Pastor Locke perceives any nation that turns against the Jewish people as inferior to them. His utterances involve the negative illocutionary act of insulting he expresses his negative opinion of Muslims in a disrespectful way with the intention to humiliate them. Bald on record impoliteness is also activated in this extract because there is a clear intention of attacking face directly.

Extract (4)

“The reason God has blessed America so greatly is not because we’re so wonderful and so righteous, it’s because we’ve been an ally and a friend to the nation of Israel. That is why God has blessed us”.

Egotism is clear in this extract as it includes an overvaluation of the importance of the nation of Israel by asserting, using speech act of asserting, that God has blessed America just because American are friend to the nation of Israel. He believes that God bless the United States if the United States blesses Israel.

Extract (5)

“The Gaza Strip which has now been cut off by Israel and rightly so. They should have cut them off a long time ago. Israel should make the Gaza Strip a parking lot by this time next week; destroy the whole thing and anybody that’s going to support this Hamas nonsense”.

This extract clearly reflects the criterion of incitement which leads to religious zealotry because Pastor Locke incites religious animosity in this part of his speech. Pastor Locke urges Israel to turn Gaza into a parking lot. Obviously, the speech act of humiliating is triggered by Pastor Locke to defile the honour of Hamas by describing them as “nonsense”. Positive impoliteness is activated in this extract as Pastor Locke ignores and excludes Gaza strip from their rights and land.

Extract (6)

“I know who will be all right, Israel, because God said no weapon formed against you is going to prosper. No nation is going to be able to stop what God’s doing in Israel, not China, not North Korea, not Hamas, not Iran, not Iraq, none of them, not Russia, no one of them. They’re small potatoes in God’s prophetic spectrum”.

In this extract, speech act of asserting is activated by Pastor Locke to assert that Israel will win and speech act of humiliating as he describes any nation that stands against Israel as “small potatoes”. Also, negative impoliteness is activated in this extract by Pastor Locke as he tries to damage the negative face want of any nation that stands against Israel including China, North Korea, Hamas, Iran, Iraq, and Russia by scorning or ridiculing them as he describes them as “small potatoes in God’s prophetic spectrum”.

Extract (7)

“I’m sick of all these Christians saying we ought to have peace with Islam. Islam is a satanic death and they would cut your head off before I said amen in this sermon if they had a chance to. Stop all this nonsense. There is nothing peaceful about Islam. The Muslim religion hates Jewish people to the core of who they are. These people are bloodthirsty mongrels”.

In this extract hostility is obvious as Pastor Locke is intended to damage the rights of Islam and Muslims to human dignity and equality. He, clearly, incites hatred as his utterances involve urging or persuading the audience to act violently or unlawfully against Islam and Muslims so that his message is perceived as a verbal attack against Islam and Muslims. His utterances in this extract are really dangerous because of its power and insistency to call for violence against them. In a part of a sermon loaded with incendiary utterances, Pastor Locke called Islam a “satanic death”. Mock politeness is also exploited by Pastor Locke because this extract involves a reputational attack which assaults upon the human dignity of Muslims by describing them as “bloodthirsty mongrels” in his attempts to vilify and marginalise Muslims. In fact, it seems that Pastor Locke is indifferent to Muslims’ positive face wants as he articulates expressions of violent emotions in which he gives Muslims possible reasons to fear them or to be embarrassed by them. Hence, Pastor Locke tries his best to express irreverence, bring up bad news about Muslims, raise dangerously emotional or divisive topics, and use offensive or embarrassing address terms.

Extract (8)

“What they ought to do is evacuate up there on the hill and get a great big missile and blow that Wicked Dome of the Rock. Blow the spot where it’s standing right now. So we can get that Third Temple rebuilt and Usher in the coming of Jesus. Tear down that demonic monstrosity that shouldn’t even be there. Blow the whole thing to Kingdom. Rebuild that Third Temple and we’ll zip up out of here in the glory land”.

In this extract, incitement is reflected by Pastor Locke as he calls for destruction of Dome of the Rock so that he incites violence in Gaza urges its destruction. He calls the Israeli soldiers to blow the Dome of the Rock with a great big missile. Pastor Locke proposes using a missile to damage and put an end to the existence of the Muslim Dome of the Rock to clear the way for the construction of the Third Temple which, as he believes, will usher in the coming of Jesus. In this sense, he encourages genocide and war. The zealotry-advocating pastor chooses to be deliberately impolite with Muslims, in general, and Palestinians, in particular, by attacking their positive and negative face wants.

Extract (9)

“Israel’s going to win. Hamas is going to be stamped out and they’re going to go slither into some caves like cockroaches and they’re going to find them and they are going to blow the caves up and kill the cockroaches”.

This extract implies intimidation as Pastor Locke uses speech act of threating in the sense that his utterances are intimidatory, frightening because Pastor Locke tries to press, urge, try to force Israeli force to stamp out and kill the members of Hamas. His speech in this extract is a threat of impending violence against Hamas as Muslim group. He insists that Hamas will be stamped out and they will go into caves “like cockroaches” and Israeli soldiers will find them and blow the caves up and kill them. In this regard, Pastor Locke threatens Hamas by underrating or degrading their group as an Islamist movement and their nationality as Palestinians.

Extract (10)

“Islam hates Christianity, hates Israel”.

In this extract, the hate-advocating pastor mostly delivers his hate speech directly which is clearly pointed out as he incites violence and discrimination against Islam and Muslims by saying that Islam hates Christianity and Israel. Also, Pastor Locke, in this sense, uses speech act of accusing all Muslims that they hate Christians. Hence, he also does not care about Muslims’ face wants as he presents a negative evaluation of Muslims.

4. Results and Discussion

After sociopragmatically analysing the data under investigation, the results show the presence of some criteria that indicate the occurrence of zealotry in religious discourse including oppositeness, negativeness of the other side, egotism, affront, incitement, hostility, intimidation, and hate speech. Such criteria are helpful in identifying the phenomenon of zealotry in any discourse. The results also reflect that negative speech acts and impoliteness strategies are two types of pragmatic strategies that are mainly used by zealots in religious discourse to convey their intended meanings. Moreover, religion and power are two social variables that can highly affect the choice and the use of the pragmatic strategies that manifest zealotry in religious discourse.

5. Conclusions

The present study ends up with the following conclusions:

1. Zealotry is a negative social and religious attitude that can be sociopragmatically reflected using certain pragmatic strategies that indicate the single-mindedness of the zealot speakers.
2. One source of zealotry is religion which can spring out of religious sectarianism, prejudice, discrimination, intolerance, and instigation.
3. This study introduces an operational definition of zealotry as a negative sociopragmatic phenomenon realised by various pragmatic strategies and influenced by different social variables, especially religion and power.
4. The ability of the interlocutors to identify these pragmatic strategies of zealotry will make them aware of the danger of language that may dominate their thoughts. This, in turn, will help them resist all forms of brainwashing and mind control.
5. The pragmatic choice of the pastor is influenced by the social variables of religion and power as two macro-social factors which influence their choices of the pragmatic strategies that suit their intentions.
6. Generally, pastors have power and moral authority over their congregations so that their speech is mostly very effective. Nevertheless, Pastor Locke has exceeded his right to freedom of expression causing danger to public order. As belonging to a dominant group, i.e. Israel, the pastor enacts power abuse that is reproduced or legitimized by his sermon.
7. Zealotry can be triggered by its defining criteria which include oppositeness, negativeness of the other side, egotism, affront, incitement, hostility, intimidation, and hate speech.
8. The presence of more than one criterion of zealotry mainly strengthens the congregation’s negative assumptions, prejudice, and intolerance towards Muslims in general, and Palestinians, in particular.
9. Zealotry can pragmatically triggered by means of certain negative speech acts such as threatening, intimidating, insulting, and humiliating. Additionally, in their intentional deviation from polite behaviours, zealots employ impoliteness strategies including bald on record impoliteness, positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, and mock politeness.
10. Zealotry in religious speech is very dangerous as it leads to hatred against a group of persons who are defined by their particular religious beliefs. Moreover, a sermon is not a political rally and, thus, such a zealot sermon does not indicate the values of religion or what it means to be religious as it promotes concepts that directly contradict those of a tolerant society and leads to more terror attacks against innocent civilians.

  

References

Beaven, P. (2017). Building English Vocabulary with Etymology from Latin Book II. Cheshire Press.

Culpeper, J. (1996). “Towards an anatomy of impoliteness”. In Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 25. (pp. 349–367).

Culpeper, J. and Terkourafi, M. (2017). “Pragmatics and (Im)politeness”. In Jonathan Culpeper, Jonathan Haugh, Michael Kadar and Daniel Kadar (eds.). Palgrave Handbook of (Im)politeness, (pp. 11–39). Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Guillén-Nieto, V. (2023). Hate Speech: Linguistic Perspectives. De Gruyter Mouton.

Hamilton, N. (1995). Zealotry and Academic Freedom: A Legal and Historical Perspective. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction.

Hardon, J. (2013). An Abridged and Updated Edition of Modern Catholic Dictionary. New York: Routledge.

Hobson, A. (2004). The Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Olson, J. (2007). “The Freshness of Fanaticism: The Abolitionist Defense of Zealotry”. In Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 685-701. American Political Science Association. Stable URL:  http://www.jstor.org/stable/20446570.

Rahi, H. and Mubarak, A. (2022). “The Pragmatics of Dialogic Civility in the Context of Ethnic Diversity”. In Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies. Vol. 18, No. 1.

Rahi, H. and Mubarak, A. (2021). “How to Be Civil with Words”. In Asian ESP Journal. Vol. 17 Issue 7.2.

Rahi, H. and Mubarak, A. (2019). “The Sociopragmatics of Preaching in an American Christian Sermon”. In Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development. Vo. 10. No.1, pp. 303-308.

Searle, J. (1976). “A Classification of Illocutionary Acts”. In Language in Society. Vol. 5. No. 1. (pp. 1-23).

Vickers, L. (2016). Religious Freedom, Religious Discrimination and the Workplace. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

 

(To Download PDF File of This Full Article in full Details, Click Here)