The Power of Speech: How Speech Shapes Identity and Drives Change (Part 1 of 3 Series)
Learn how your words influence personal growth, relationships, and societal transformation.
The Power of Speech: Analysis of Speech Forms:
Words are not just a means of communication; they are the building blocks of reality. From personal relationships to societal transformations, the power of speech shapes identities, influences decisions, and even drives global change. In this section, we’ll explore how the words we speak—whether in casual conversations or monumental speeches—have the ability to create worlds. Learn how the transformative power of speech can alter the course of human experience, impact cultures, and leave lasting legacies
The manner in which an individual forms their social surroundings heavily depends on their speech, in the usage of specific words, tone and deliverance. This social experience results in reciprocity, which creates a sense of our social stature. There is an identity which one would form in relation to their social experience, there is no escape from that influence. Speech formulates the entirety of the subjective experience into small capsules, which become representatives of that experience as a summary of the subjective experience; the headline, the book cover. Speech is one of the core concepts which encompasses layers upon layers of understanding; an inexhaustible reservoir of depth to serve many other essential concepts. Thus, speech serves strides of transformative experience through time and can outlive us by many factors. The creation story is, in fact, through the bridge of speech[1], as the world was spoken into form and structure. The ‘word’ especially in the heavenly spheres has its effect to transform earthly form[2], by way of its sensitivity, subtlety and holiness, all the more so of God himself. Just as nations are born through their beginning words, in the cellars of the underworld; with those words being a dramatic footprint on civilization for lengthy periods of time. There are many categories of speech, some of which are reprehensible and cause immediate and direct damage while others have the ability to transform, quite similar to the initial words of creation.
Starting from the base and continuously evolving towards the purer and more powerful forms of speech which are complex and Godly. The complexity is most apparent in the recipient of whoever the speech is being spoken to, it can be a single person or a collective who will obtain to understand the words, possibly leading to a new track of thought whilst inevitably resulting into action towards humanity and civilization, think of the Bible and its influence on most civilizations for multiple millenniums, actions taken only because of those initial sentiments. Recipients of spoken words do receive not only the rational ideas and intentions, but also the underlying sentiment. It is thoroughly contagious, where one’s identity becomes fused with the speaker.[3]
Because speech is limited in function, as we can think many thoughts in comparison to its words delivered, the simple utterance of certain words demands reason for the negating of other words. We derive inexplicit notions from speech as much as the content itself, the derivative is the need to appropriate these words, when other possibilities exist, including the possibility to be silent.[4] The degree in which we could assume the awareness of possibility in word choosing is the degree of inference we would strive to make.
For instance, you relate to a listener the experience of a certain city you just visited, “it was nice but overly crowded”. The recipient doesn’t only digest this statement as such but rather creates a dramatic picture of a city which is so inadequate that simple crowdedness is a deterrent. The context which dramatizes and elaborates the spoken word, is that words are simply limited. The mere fact that these words were chosen from countless thoughts, declares the word to be bolded as to say, this is a truth among other feasible truths. As such the listener will assume this interpretation, the experience of the city was so horrific as the speaker has chosen these words from many possible thoughts and experiences to describe their experience. The spoken word is similar to a headline while the actual written texts are the “thoughts” which produce the spoken word/headline. (we can argue which produces which)
Even though it surely was experienced as crowded and wish to relate such, this statement would not do justice in its interpretation. This statement consists of an inference that “all experience in this city is futile in consideration of the amount of crowdedness that was experienced”. Of course this is not the intention although it will be perceived as such. If you wish to describe the city according to your truthful experience and be received as such you must preface “the one thing that created discomfort was that this city was crowded”. This leaves no room for a different interpretation as you explicitly stated “the one thing” as to say “this is not the entire picture of my experience of that city”.
There will be those who have a tendency to seek the negative from a neutral statement and interpret this statement as the general narrative of that city, it being crowded. They are able to find this narrative because there remains an opening to derive the notion that if it were not an overall problem constituting the entirety of the city, then the crowdedness would not be mentioned as a synopsis.
The fact that they chose to derive “the city was crowded”, a synopsis, when in contrast they could have interpreted from the words “the one thing” as it sounds, to be one of many other synopsis about the city, demonstrates their willingness to find negativity over positivity. Also demonstrating a lack of depth in their rationality and understanding, as no city in any realm can be so degraded that the crowdedness is the only possible description of it.
This example demonstrates the possibility of interpretation in any given word, and a statement which contains an apparent narrative of negativity will always be available to an inference that it’s the only possible description, hence becoming thoroughly negative. While also demonstrating the hostility of those who insist on the interpretation of words to be negative despite the clear indication to the contrary. Thirdly, this example displays the wise individual’s interpretation of all sentiments of negativity, for such a feat they must add information and intuition beyond the given word. “It is not rational that a city is only defined by its crowdedness”, “Since this is a perspective based on experience, this only demonstrates the shallowness of the speaker”. “Surely there are more layers of experience to a city than one negative characteristic”. The wise will decipher far beyond the initial derivatives of any given statement to receive a more accurate and purposeful narrative. The wiser the individual the easier this will be, for they understand that a descriptive analysis is only through the lens of experience and is strictly based on individualistic experience. That individual may have experienced a separate frustration which contributed to the perspective, possibly receiving a negative narrative about the city which contributed to that experience. Even as far as to assume that crowdedness was not necessarily experienced at all, only that they were seeking such based on an accounting of the city, in fact, had they not consisted of this narrative which was the sole ‘frame’ to experience the city, they might have had the most insightful and energizing experience. They might encounter many new experiences in that city without ever having the opportunity to find a more profound experience, bound to that naïve lens which they adhere to.
Since the subjective experience and its external realm are in synchronization, this becomes an analysis of themselves for which they perceive their ‘own’ in the lens in which they see externalities.[5] The seekers of negativity might crave to annihilate their subjective experience from existence, for which they have surmised to be nothing more than empty and desolate. If it seems an over-dramatization that the seekers of negativity is another form of a hatred of existence, we are all plagued by the question of our existence and those who find answers that invite flourishment, while others who surmise existence as an empty reality will invite destruction into their experience. Every now and then, there are those who are “courageous” enough to act out that destruction unto society, this is surely not a call for more evil, yet these people are the few who actually enact their inner experience while others are living such, while maintaining an outward persona of a socialized being. With enough reasons to remove that civilized wall and their courage will sprout forward, may God protect us from their vile behavior. May God protect us from the journey which enables such behavior.
I have arrived to attempt to define speech into specific categories in the need to identify the ones which must be attended to with a careful eye. Four categories to isolate different forms of speech, one is ‘narrative’ [negative or positive], then ‘descriptive’, after that is ‘expression’, fourthly would be ‘destructive’. The intentions that are the undertone of these forms of speech are ‘connection’, ‘information sharing’, ‘expression’ and ‘destruction’. Notice how the four forms of speech are parallel with the four motives of speech, although any motive can invoke any form of speech, for instance a motive to destroy with a negative narrative.
Only time would tell on the one who stays stagnant to those that inI am generalizing to build a context for deciphering the modes of any given word, this does not entail all possible analysis and there are always more layers to unfold. Narrative is the most powerful of the bunch as it can reach through time, recreating entire perspectives towards the most important aspects of life, as well as reaching the most indigenous population with its simplicity. Narrative is a combination of words which are interpretations of an array of information based on its core values. The example above is a statement of narrative, “the city is crowded”, the value being ‘space’. We can portray any narrative about a subject even while a specific portrayal would not be more correct than its counterpart. The role of narrative is to describe a set of values through the prism of experience. The spectrum of values are not inherently right or wrong, they become labeled as such from a subjective audience.
Descriptive is closely related to narrative, it sets information forward, a way of describing reality in objective form. It fundamentally cannot be argued, as there is only one correct analysis towards the information at our disposal. “The sky is blue”, “The grass is green”, “The water is cold”. The descriptive form can be argued by way of deciphering a narrative, the sky is only blue because we perceive it as such, it is not inherently blue, this would be interpreting our description to be a narrative, that we must be only relating our experience of the sky. This form of argumentation can be invoked on any descriptive proposition, in gaining that all narratives can be argued or be seen in a different light. So we must seek the intention towards redefining the description, is it for a more precise description or only to devalue all the propositional truths as a way of destroying our relationship with reality (and reality itself). Anyway, we would still ‘act’ as if the sky is blue, ‘act’ as if it’s objective and can be described as such.
We are using our precious words to explain reality for the use of a said objective, so any form of descriptive speech will never be the final objective, although closely related to such. “Since the sky is blue, I will paint my ceilings blue”. The information about the sky will direct my values towards its objective. “The water is cold so I will not go swimming”, the value of swimming does not outweigh the discomfort of the cold water. You can describe something which will be closely intertwined with narrative, for instance, describing the city as “consisting of tall buildings”. Although seemingly, this statement is a descriptive form of speech, but because it was chosen to be a description of the city in this setting and not another, speculates a form of narrative. The tall buildings are the character of the city and not just a descriptive picture, the value being ‘tall buildings’ probably as a ‘good’ mark, the city as consisting of ‘good’ character.
Similarly, saying the statement that “the sky is blue” can be interpreted as a narrative. The sky is being labeled through the prism of a ‘color structure’ and specifically denoting other prisms, such as an “open air infinity” or “a mass of gasses”. The value embedded in this interpretation is that it describes the sky as its experienced, which is considered better than its scientific reality. Furthermore, the use of a ‘color’ label implies that this perspective is aesthetically more pleasing than an infinite vastness of the heavens. We have demonstrated that this all depends on the recipient of any spoken word. The most narrating statements can be interpreted as descriptive, while the most descriptive words can be interpreted in narrative form.
The statement “This person has a bad character” which seems like a negative narrative, might be defined by the wise as descriptive, “This person has evil desires as does everyone on planet earth” which is a factual description (arguably so). There is nothing formulated about this person more intuitively than the actual matter of existence, similarly to describing this person as containing limbs and bones. I would not advise this sort of perspective as a general rule, as we might incorporate evil processes by defining all people to be the similar structure as our subjective experience. The hearts of men consist of evil, which is very true, real and worrisome. That sentence that I just stated is a narrative form of speech, some may define it as a ‘negative’ form while others will perceive it as positive. The positivity of keeping a keen eye on the good and evil that we may possess, to ensure the good to thrive.
As we have theorized, all descriptive forms of speech have a small amount of narration while all narrative forms of speech have a small amount of descriptive information. We base our functionality on narratives, some very natural without the slightest notice, maintaining a narrative that our existence matters to social surroundings, a narrative about the loftiest ‘good’ of being. The verse “we have in front of us life and death, choose life”[6] is pertaining to our choice of narratives, being in a position to formulate narratives about society and about our own subjective experience in either a positive or negative direction, being both technically right from a descriptive point of view. We can argue if our existence was worth creating and propositionalize to either side of the equation. Yet we are forced to be in agreement that we must ‘act’ as if we are worth existing. Realistically, we must choose life despite the logical propositions of life being worthless.
All narratives are true in their propositional form because they contain good and evil at its core, and those elements are surely true. Therefore, we are limited in labeling them ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ narratives. There is no neutral narrative when deciphered properly, since stories are based on values and in return, values are based on good and evil. Let’s take one example to emphasize this further. A simple story, “He walked to the store and found it to be closed, frustrated he went home and found the item he was seeking to purchase”. We cannot make this story more precise by saying “he walked to the store”, because that is still descriptive. Even stating that “he walked to the store and found it to be closed” is still descriptive as there is no inherent reason and value to the statement. Only once we stated that “he found the item he was seeking to purchase” can this be defined as a narrative, the value that the closed store was in fact a fortune for his needs. Obviously this clearly arises in the realm of good and evil as this is portraying “fate” or God investing in one’s ultimate goodness, or the lesson of the ‘good’ in disguise as ‘bad’.
Expression is very finite and consists only of what an individual truthfully feels, in its essence expression is that faculty outflowing from personhood experience towards the external world. Expression can manifest itself in the external world through the conduit of conscious thought or physical communication, with conscious thought being considered an external manifestation that originates from internal unconscious realms. There are layers of relevancy to personhood and the metrics of what is considered to be more relevant is how connected the content is to the ‘true’ person. This can be understood by the many forms of expression that are truly not a manifestation of the inner person. What a delightful time we had, this statement is a demonstration of an experience of personhood and only the one who had stated it would know if this is a manifestation of the ‘true’ person or is the statement created as a narrative in the form of expression. They might conceal their true subjective experiences and instead present a curated form of expression in the hope that it would be perceived as a genuine experience.
In essence, speech is the silent architect of our reality. The words we choose—whether uplifting or damaging—have a profound influence not just on our personal lives but also on the world around us. By understanding the deeper layers of speech and the stories it tells, we unlock the power to shape not just our identity, but also the future of our communities and societies. Stay tuned as we delve into the next section, where we uncover the hidden psychology behind speech and its impact on human behavior.
Explore the Entire Series:
Continue to Section 2: "The Psychology of Speech—Unlocking Hidden Motives and Influence"
Jump to Section 3: "Mastering Connection Through Storytelling and Expression"
[1] Tractate Avot - 5:1
[2] Isaiah - 6:4
[3] Freud - Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego” (1921) “in every group a sentiment and act is contagious, and contagious to such a degree that an individual readily sacrifices his personal interest to the collective interest.”
[4] ‘Derivative’ is a concept in Torah study, for the author of any Torah work is assumed to be deliberate in their words and that we understand an immense amount of Torah from the implicit inference despite it not being spoken.
[5] Proverbs - 27:19
[6] Deuteronomy - 30:19