I did some more thinking about this, and at the risk of dragging things
beyond the interest of others, here's what I came up with.
I see two ideas that Jeff is discussing: cultural immersion and words
without common opposites. I agree that all people to one degree or another
are immersed in their culture(s), meaning that they view the world through
their language(s) and cultural values and perspectives. I don't see how it
could be otherwise. One could add to his or her repertoire of cultures,
languages and perspectives, but would always be limited to those that were
adopted.
The second idea of words without common opposites has been hard for me to
accept. In thinking about it more I realized that most words do _not_ have
common opposites. And yet the words are very meaningful and serviceable.
How is "environmentalist" or "do gooder" any different from "pond" or
"vegetable garden"? Or "American" or "foreigner"? Each word is vague in
that the group it describes has fuzzy boundaries, yet each word is
intelligible and useful. Similar words exist in the languages I know and
are similarly fuzzy, though the boundaries may be in different places.
To use a language you must to a large degree buy into the commonly agreed
upon fuzzy boundaries. The fuzziness allows for creativity and for unusual
cases and unique situations. That the agreement is unspoken and often
unnoticed gets at what I think Jeff is saying about cultural immersion. I
find it interesting that many diverse cultures use very similar fuzzy
boundaries, so that it is not hard to translate most words and ideas.
Therefore the differences are interesting.
Here's an example of where the fuzzy boundaries are different. In Japanese
the colors are divided up differently. Commonly the rainbow has seven
colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple and indigo. The line
between green and blue is also different; the word for blue also applies to
signal lights and new plant growth.
The word "environmentalist" has no common opposite, though one can imagine
and discuss someone, without a word for them, that is not interested in
environmental issues. That the Bushmen might not have a word for
"environmentalist", and in fact might have a word for people who do _not_
care about the environment, may be pointing out cultural biases. (Perhaps
I'm having trouble with the word "bias" rather than "custom" or
"perspective"?)
I think whether or not there is a commonly used opposite is not an
indicator of cultural immersion or bias. All language requires the
unspoken agreement to the fuzzy boundaries, though they may be specifically
discussed at times. To think in a language will often limit one to the
boundaries of that language. My wife and I find ourselves speaking a
mixture of Japanese and English, often in the same sentence, in order to
express our ideas. We are able to pick and choose the words and phrases
that best fit our ideas which form within a realm of thinking where both
languages contribute ideas and boundaries. As I also use other modes of
thinking (pictorial, intuitive, etc.), I can't say that English, or the
American culture, has strict boundaries for me. In that we speak from our
own place with our own tools, we are immersed in our place with all of the
influences that bear on it. I'm just not sure that a lack of a common
opposite draws a line anywhere that can't be drawn somewhere else.
I feel that I'm rambling again, so I'll stop here. I hope there is some
meaning in there for some of you : )
Eric Storm
