theory, the theory of uptake which states that the illocutionary force of the utterance is
decided solely by the speaker , the strongest theory of uptake. However, this title is
without comparison to Bird’s (2002) theory of uptake. I shall now explore Bird’s
(2002) theory of uptake, how it came about, what it means for Langton’s (1993) claim,
and how it compares to the ratification theory (McDonald, 2020). It is important to
highlight that Langton’s (1993) claim, that pornography leads to the silencing of
women is reliant on the constitutional theory of uptake. This is the theory which I have
just shown to be the most problematic, and so at this stage justification of Langton’s
(1993) claim looks sceptical. However, after examination of literature by Bird (2002),
I will present the case of Illocutionary frustration (Hesni, 2018) which shows how
Langton’s (1993) claims, in terms of the conclusions that it leads to, can still be
justified, but that a different premises regarding the of uptake will have to be adopted.
2.4 Bird’s (2002) view on uptake.
Alexander Bird (2002, pp.1) argues that uptake of any kind is not required for
successful illocution or refusal. Thus, opposing both the ratification and constitutional
theory of uptake. Bird’s (2002) argument initially starts as a criticism of Langton’s
(1993). He argues that Langton (1993) is not justified in her claim that uptake is
needed for successful illocution and refusal. In his article titled ‘ Illocutionary
Silencing’ (Bird, 2002), his main objection highlights the undesirable consequences of
Langton’s (1993) argument, that uptake is necessary for an illocutionary act to be
performed. I shall call this objection the ‘rapist, not a rapist objection’. The objection
concerns how Langton (1993, pp. 321) suggests that pornography leaves women
unable to refuse sex even when uttering “no”. If a woman is unable to refuse, there are
no grounds for refusal. Thus, if she hasn’t refused sex how can it be said she was
raped? Bird (2002, pp.3) recognis es that there is still something “badly wrong” (Bird,
2002, pp. 3) in this case but sees it as “less bad than ignoring a refusal” (Bird, 2002,
pp.3).
71
Made with FlippingBook HTML5