Stanley Cavell’s writings on skepticism in The Claim of Reason offer a lens through which to interpret the surprising connections between language and politics. While the book is famously difficult to summarize, it operates by juxtaposing seemingly disparate areas of philosophy, which are not often considered in dialogue with one another. A notable example of this occurs in the first chapter, where, after discussing the role of criteria in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy of language, Cavell shifts to a reflection on the social contract.
In Cavell’s view, the social contract is not just an explicit agreement among citizens but consists of the shared criteria of judgments through which a society governs itself. A fundamental mystery each new generation faces is: “How can I be bound by a contract I don’t remember agreeing to?” Cavell’s answer reinterprets the agreements that form the basis of political orders, suggesting that these agreements are more about being-in-agreement with a way of life rather than consenting to a specific constitutional order.
A young person is initiated into this social contract much like they learn their native language—by emulating their elders until they develop the practical competence to speak and act for themselves. Learning to speak a language does not trap us into merely repeating others’ ideas; rather, it equips us to express our unique perspectives. Similarly, learning the foundational norms of society empowers us to both accept the existing order and challenge or modify it when necessary. As Wittgenstein states in Philosophical Investigations, one can demonstrate an understanding of a rule by both “following” and “going against” it. In Cavell’s conception of the social contract, intergenerational contestation of these norms is how the young learn to navigate and eventually come into agreement with their social order. Political dissent, then, is not a rejection of the social contract but a vital process for exploring “our mutual acceptance.”
Intergenerational Struggles in Politics
Cavell’s vision of the social contract highlights two significant themes in contemporary political life. First, the intergenerational nature of the contract speaks to the persistent struggles between generations in politics. Recent political events, such as the UK general election and the upcoming U.S. Presidential election, reveal a pronounced generational divide among voters. For instance, a strikingly low percentage of people under a certain age supported the British Conservative Party in the recent election. Similarly, in the U.S., prior to President Biden’s withdrawal, the two major-party nominees for President were both over 75, prompting widespread discussion of America’s gerontocracy. Additionally, recent protests in the U.S. and U.K. regarding the war in Gaza have underscored stark generational differences in attitudes toward Israel.
According to Cavell, intergenerational renewal is essential for a polity’s progress. Each generation learns the norms and practices of the state from their elders, and through their practical mastery of these norms, they are empowered to change and adapt the constitutional order as they confront issues that resonate deeply with their own experiences. It is often said that people grow more conservative with age. However, through a Cavellian lens, this could be seen as each generation first learning the constitution they are born into, then voicing how it does not fully represent them, striving to change it in their youth, and then fighting to preserve the constitutional order as they age. Each generation then struggles to remake their inherited constitution in a new way. People do not so much become conservative as they age, but appear to do so as each new generation challenges the entrenched norms of the older generation.
Currently, in August 2024, the U.S. election has been reset along generational lines. Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” and his supporters’ frequent refrain of “I want my country back” reflect more than just nostalgia—they signal a perception that the norms of society are shifting. Consider the generational divide over the practice of posting one’s pronouns on social media and in email signatures. For younger people, this is both a way to avoid being misgendered and, for cisgender individuals, an expression of solidarity with transgender individuals against transphobia. To older generations, however, this practice often seems strange and symbolic of a dangerous “woke-ism.” This divide is driven partly by transphobia, but also by genuine confusion over these evolving norms.
A recent interview between Donald Trump and conservative pundit Laura Ingraham highlights this confusion. When Ingraham asked Trump what his pronouns were, Trump replied, “I don’t want pronouns. I don’t want pronouns. I saw that.” Ingraham then jokingly asked, “So you’re fluid?” The clip quickly circulated online, with many mocking Trump for his response. However, his rejection of pronouns inadvertently underscores the very point that those declaring their pronouns are making—it’s impossible to deny the existence of gender. By refusing all pronouns, Trump unintentionally identifies himself as non-binary.
Cavell’s Perspective on Pronouns and Political Struggle
From a Cavellian perspective, the recent changes in pronoun practices reveal a previously unexplored aspect of our grammatical-political life, where the younger generation has a more advanced practical mastery in the use of pronouns than their elders. This shift in practice reflects a broader shift in attitudes toward transgender issues. Like any political struggle, the outcome remains uncertain, and the divide over the issue is not merely generational. Indeed some young people express transphobic views, and some older people identify as transgender or trans-allies. Yet Trump’s stumbling over pronoun usage exposes a deeper incoherence in the outright rejection of pronouns.
In Cavell’s terms, Trump is trying to evade his responsibility for language, but the cost of this is not just a rejection of transgender rights but a rejection of his own logical consistency. Not every political issue is grammatical-political, but Cavell’s insight into the deep connection between language structures and political practices reveals how our political struggles are rooted in the grammar of our lives. Understanding this connection invites us to consider that political change might begin not just with policy or protest, but with the very language we use to describe our world. In this light, the battle over pronouns is emblematic of a deeper, ongoing negotiation of our collective values and the meanings we ascribe to our shared existence.
Jonathan Havercroft
Jonathan Havercroft is a Professor of International Relations in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Glasgow. He is the author of the books Captives of Sovereignty (CUP, 2011) and Stanley Cavell’s Democratic Perfectionism (CUP, 2023). His essay “Why is there no just riot theory?” won the 2020 Brian Barry Prize for best essay in political science. He has held fellowships from the British Academy, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities at the University of Edinburgh.
