Luke writes: >Isn't it [the phenomena of language/experience] more dialectical, with influences both ways? So that >the >absence of certain words/concepts in a culture (e.g., the >absence of >a word to refer to females that does not define them purely in >relation to males) can make it much more difficult to see >certain >possibilities (such as women's liberation). That's interesting to think about, and may very well be the case. You have to ask yourself, if the word for "jealousy" does not exist in a culture, then does the experience also not exist? Does the lack of the word mean that people never feel jealousy? Or does it mean that they feel it, but they don't know what to call it? Or they call it something else? Still, it's difficult to use this approach in thinking about females as defined purely in relation to males -- at least, it is for me. I don't think of the words in that way at all (i.e., man/woman; male/female), and again, this may be my own social conditioning. Direct experience and the construct of language are certainly dialectical, as you suggest; and then I would say that _because_ of this, the way we interpret the word "woman" is largely a matter of culture and social conditioning, rather than the existence of the world in itself. Am I following your reasoning, or have I misunderstood? >I read Wittgenstein a while ago, and I think he would agree >that our >linguistic/conceptual structure shapes our reality, not vice >versa. >So struggle over language IS political struggle. (Obviously >language >is not the ONLY arena for political struggle.) On Wittgenstein, yes, I agree -- in part. But we must first have the experience, develop a linguistic construct, and then that construct may evolve. But I wonder whether the evolution takes place because of the word, or because our cultural and social experiences are changing and so change our use of the word? I don't think Witt. ever fully answered this question. I guess it doesn't matter, though. You are right in saying that struggle over language is political (if I ever suggested that I didn't think this, then I heartily backpeddle now). The problem, I think, lies in focusing on the notion that by changing language alone, we can somehow hope to change society. I think this is a dangerous assumption. On the other hand, if by changing language (or certain words or phrases), we can increase _awareness_ about a political problem, then maybe that's enough. But has it really worked for people of color? American Indians? Or do we just _think_ it's worked. I'd be curious to hear from people who are in a position to say. >disobedience, or revolutionary impulse, is so much >more disorganized, ineffective, mischanneled, etc., when we >have no >vocabulary for revolution. "Anarchy" is the first example that >comes >to my mind. People in the US right now really cannot conceive >of the >possibility of living without governmental repression (cops, >prisons, >military), because the mass media have successfully gotten >"anarchy" >to connote violence and chaos. Because of this linguistic >manipulation, we now live in a culture where opposition to >street >crime simply MEANS building more prisons and hiring more >cops. We >cannot see the possibility of policing our own neighborhoods. >There's no word for such a thing, and there are no examples of >it, >and these two facts are dialectically linked. I think these may be two separate discussions (i.e., this one and the linguistic one above), but I'll have to think that through a bit. Personally, I like to avoid using such broad generalizations as "people in the US" when describing social response to crime, et al. I'm not sure we can really speak that generally about a country this big and this culturally diverse with any real accuracy. If we're talking about Washington, of course that's another story: but we have to remember that this is a group of people who was elected by only thirty-something percent of the eligible electorate -- a pitiful representation of "people in the US." As far as what violence and chaos mean, I think you'd be surprised to learn that it doesn't necessarily mean more prisons and more police to _all_ (maybe even most) people. Of course, I too am speaking from a regional bias, but I recently researched a magazine piece on this issue and most people do _not_ believe that prisons are the answer (I think some people are frustrated and don't know the answers, the result being that they may think of prisons as a last resort). I am at a loss to know why most legislators feel this way (that prisons are the answer), but that's another matter for another thread. Also, a _lot_ of people are policing their own neighborhoods. I live in Northern California, and it's not only not uncommon here, it's becoming increasingly popular; so I'd have to argue that many people _do_ see that as a possibility. Anyway -- how does this relate to the earlier thread? I'm not saying it doesn't, it's just that it's late and I'm tired and I'm starting to lose track of things. Thanks for the good dialogue. Ciao. --Katharine English
