We move in and use language with so little effort that it can be hard to look at what it does. The most common intuition for what language does is the conveyance of information. There is something I know (or something you asked for), I express it, we now share the information. Considered this way, language is the vehicle for interpersonal exchange.

Another way of looking at language is to recognize that many times utterances are acts. When you say “I apologize!” or “Thank you!” or “I promise!”, it is through those words that you are apologizing or thank or promising. When a judge declares “Guilty!”, it is that declaration that unleashes the punitive power of the state over a defendant.

Forcing oneself to look past the information-exchange of language and see the speech acts can help clarify why some attempts at coordinating people fail. Consider a group that seeks to reach a decision by consensus. Various options are put forward, mood surveys conducted, objections and alternatives discussed. Multiple options seem to have emerged that are backed by the group, but the moderator is fearful of seeming too powerful and does not step up to declare that an option has been accepted. At the same time, nobody else in the group is empowered to perform a declaration like this, so the discussion drags on. Not looking at speech acts can lead one to believe that what’s lacking in this situation is clarity rather than a declaration.

Similarly, you might be in the situation of having to coordinate multiple people for a common goal in an activist context. The people give updates about where they are standing, what challenges they’re facing and when they expect to be done with their part. You leave the meeting with a queasy feeling because you’re still not sure which of the timelines can be trusted and try to assess the commitment of the participants by looking at the words they used (“I’m sure” vs “I’m very confident”) or the quality of their plans. In your uncertainty, you might follow up with some and request more information about how things are going so you can create your own idea of how likely things are to work out. The mistake you’d be making would be to assume that the only relevant thing is information: information about the capacity of the participants, the likelihood that they will drop out, and the quality of their plans. What you actually want is commitment: You want them to take ownership of their parts so that they can be relied on the same way you would rely on a friend who promises to pick you up at the airport. But no amount of information will get you there. What you need is for them to make promises, to perform a speech act of commitment. It’s “I promise we’ll have the water cubes ready” rather than “I’m sure we’ll have the water cubes ready”.

These two types of speech acts, declaration and commitment, are complemented by a third type: a request. A request is how you encourage and lead others to make the speech acts needed. It is different from a question insofar as a question usually expects information as a response whereas a request expects an act as a response.

Looking for the acts performed rather than the processes followed can rehumanize an organisation because an act can only be performed by persons. In the midst of protocols and update schedules it can be hard to see what the actual work is that gets done. Looking for the declarations and commitments people make cuts through this often frustrating fog.

References

Speech Acts are a well-studied topic in philosophy and the SEP will be a decent starting point: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/

Also have a look at “Anatomy of Failure: Philosophy and Political Action” by Oliver Feltham