THE CURSE OF LINGUISTIC, CULTURAL AND POLITICAL RELATIVISM

THE CURSE OF LINGUISTIC, CULTURAL AND POLITICAL RELATIVISM

Let us begin with linguistic relativism, because on the face of it, language frames all that comes afterwards. By the way, ‘relativism’ here means ‘the twain shall never meet’, ‘irreconcilable differences’, ‘impossible to translate’ or some such metaphor. I will in the end briefly explore that other famous meaning of Einstein’s ‘theory of relativity’, which may be more appropriate when considering language in the context of culture and politics.

It is a well-worn old chestnut by now, this tired old Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that claimed that language determines one’s world-view and/or cognition, and since we have many ‘different’ languages we also have many ‘different’ world-views, and since one language cannot truly ever understand another language, equally ‘different’ cultures cannot ever meet on the level playing field. I (and more notable linguists like Chomsky and Lenneberg) have argued elsewhere that this train of thought is a reactionary plot to establish a hierarchy of linguistic, cultural and political systems that favours the WASPish world we currently live in. It is little wonder then that such twaddle is peddled not only as fake news but also as serious academic discourse. Take a bizarre example I have quoted before, from Claire Kramsch, who in a 2009 interview makes the following observation:

The more people speak English around the world the less people understand one another. So it’s this irony that we’re moving into an era where more and more people speak English and yet less and less do they understand one another because through English they are thinking, they speak English but they think French, or they speak English and they think Hindi. And so it becomes an invisible multilingualism behind the English that they speak and I think applied linguistics has a lot to contribute to that understanding of what it means to have a multilingual mentality, a multilingual competence.

http://pterodactilo.com/numero6/?p=541A

Along the way, myriads of contradictions are piled upon each other, resulting in a web of staggering misinformation, often perpetuated by so-called liberals who mix and match their pet theories in order to sound progressive and enlightened. 

Let us take New Zealand/Aotearoa as a case study. Note that is considered progressive to append Aotearoa to New Zealand, in an attempt to acknowledge the indigenous language, named ‘te reo Maori’ by none other than Pakeha. The latter is a Maori term for non-Maori but basically meaning the WASP ruling class of New Zealand. Prior to European colonisation, Maori did not think of themselves as Maori but eventually had to accept the term imposed on them collectively, in order to deal with the colonisers. The missionaries in particular realised that the best way to convert the ‘natives’ was to do it in their own language. Translating the Bible into Maori was the thing to do, and as such they dispensed with any linguistic relativity in order to impose their religious/cultural superiority. Of course this ‘translation’ was in itself an act of linguistic imperialism, as noted by Kennedy Warne who quotes Anne Salmond:

Thus, as Salmond enumerates, an atua, a powerful ancestor, lost all sense of personal connection and was rendered a disembodied god. Wairua, the totality of a person’s immaterial being, became compartmentalised as spirit. Tapu, stripped of ancestral presence, became merely a category called sacred. Likewise noa, rather than fulfilling the role of yin to tapu’s yang, was demoted to profane. A tohunga, an expert steeped in ancestral knowledge, became a religious priest (or, worse, a witch doctor). Karakia, chants which in their very utterance invoke the breath of life, turned into supplicatory prayers. Utu, the principle of reciprocity, was narrowed and sensationalised as revenge. Whakapapa, the matrix of connections among all human and nonhuman life, dwindled into mere genealogy.

“There are no words in English to translate words like tapu, mana, utu and hau, which were (and are) ontological terms, premised on the taken-for-granted presence and power of ancestors in everyday life, and different states of being in te ao mārama, te kore and te pō,” writes Salmond. “Such words presuppose a reality that is, in many respects, fundamentally at odds with Western ideas about the world.”

https://e-tangata.co.nz/reflections/listening-to-the-people-of-the-land/

Anne Salmond is Aotearoa’s preeminent Pakeha scholar on all things Maori and Captain Cook, suffice to say here that Warne uses her in an attempt to show off his own liberal-progressive stance on the state of the world and Aotearoa in particular, the point being that Warne waxes lyrical in having discovered a Maori world-view that can only be experienced by breathing and living it, and by the way making language a bit redundant, because according to Salmond, it seems quite impossible to really understand and appreciate Maori language if it is not your first language, i.e. it is impossible to translate key concepts into English (although she herself provides good English paraphrases which explain the Maori words in question quite well), because – to repeat:

“Such words presuppose a reality that is, in many respects, fundamentally at odds with Western ideas about the world.”

This is also a red herring because it presupposes that there is only one, and only one, set of ‘Western ideas about the world’. Let’s take the often cited supposed conundrum of what ‘land’ means: Westerners see it as ‘property/real estate’ while Maori see it as some sort of spiritual relationship to the people, held in common possession. There have been any numbers of Western proponents for land to be the ‘commons’, not least the socialists. But wait: ‘Western ideas about the world’ is a privileged term that only refers to WASPish capitalism (with a kind or not so kind face), so don’t you dare to suggest that traditional Maori societies were atheist and socialist in essence (whether they were or were not is another question). Hence the enterprise, the likes of Salmond and Warne, engage in is a way of acknowledging Maori as the ‘other’ but as a spiritual treasure, not as troublesome hindrance as commonly practiced by the early colonisers and current right-wing politicians.

Which brings us to the political relativism, which is otherwise known as capitalism versus socialism (and the many shades in between). Note Trump’s assertion that America will never be a socialist country! Maori as a disenfranchised minority typically vote Labour, having been not only made into good Christians by and large but also made into good democrats who believe that voting for a government is close to a divine exercise, sanctioned by the churches they go to. Salmond and Warne want to maintain this status-quo, gently coercing Maori into the WASPish fold, being more Maori than the Maori, and BTW explaining it all in English so that the English folk who are bereft of any Maori language or culture, can rest assured that all will be well, as long as we acknowledge that Maori is a beautiful language (we will never understand), that they have a beautiful culture, that they have a beautiful religion that is essentially Christian (what a relief) and that they are eager to engage in Maori entrepreneurship, buying and selling anything but their land (maybe we can educate them on that a bit more). Any Maori exercising his traditional right to become an atheist and socialist will be met with laws to combat terrorism (as was this shameful exercise in the Uruweras with not even a single Maori atheist and socialist in sight).

Which brings us to the last bastion of Western ideas: the law of private property. When you are buying and selling stuff, as a business, you need contract law lest one party involved makes a runner. So how would this work in a society that has abolished private property? Well, in name only, as in the PRC, the world’s number two economy and main trading partner of New Zealand/Aotearoa. Since PRC Chinese now make up a substantial part of emigrants to New Zealand, we are faced with a problem, aren’t we? The problem of linguistic, cultural and political relativism all rolled into one. 

For a start, I as a ESOL teacher have to contend with teaching English to speakers of Chinese languages (mainly Mandarin), knowing, as I should from the dominant paradigm, that you simply cannot translate Chinese into English and vice versus, and that ‘their’ culture is so different to ‘ours’, so that we have an impossible task, unless, of course, we take decisive action like ‘teaching’ Chinese students that they have to learn to be ‘polite’, a concept, we know, that does not exist in Chinese culture. Such crazy ideas are advanced by serious scholars at universities; see my blog entry called ‘TESOL without cultural baggage’ where I dare to suggest that language teaching has nothing to do with culture (à la Chomsky) and that academics who preach linguistic and cultural relativism are in fact racists. But wait, there is more: we all know from the news that the PRC is the last evil empire, what with a dictator-President who still quotes the atheist Mao-dze-dong, and commits genocide against the Uighurs (see the ‘liberal’ Guardian media campaign against the Chinese government), hence Chinese immigrants to New Zealand/Aotearoa come brainwashed with horrendous world-views. In other words it is our job to re-educate them, gently of course, as it is not their fault that they have been brainwashed. However, if they persist with their brainwashed ideas about socialism, communism and no real appreciation of private property, they may think what belongs to me belongs to them, and as such contravene NZ intellectual property laws. 

This is where Mai Chen comes in, the most prominent lawyer in New Zealand/Aotearoa. Being of Chinese extraction herself but being a good old Kiwi by birth and upbringing, puts her into a bit of a muddle: how to explain her ethnic compatriots’ strange behaviour when they come before the law? Discussing her paper called ‘Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Parties in the Courts: A Chinese Case Study’ on RNZ, she comes to the conclusion that the PRC legal system is fundamentally different from the NZ one, mainly because the PRC system is totally corrupt while ours is not (she cites the supposed case of a high-ranking Communist Party official who may dismiss the judge, as opposed to the other way round in NZ). Then she comes up with the old chestnut that Chinese people in general have this cultural obsession with ‘saving face’, hence when in a NZ court, they will go to extreme lengths not to plead guilty because it would be bad for their reputation. Well, come on, isn’t that a fairly universal obsession, if not a NZ one? Winston Peters, current Deputy PM, is suing various government and public servants because they besmirched his reputation as an ‘honest’ man? In business, Mai Chen says, Chinese do deals by shaking hands without any documented contracts, hence when before the courts they just argue about who said what – quite unlike NZ where contract law is the first step of any business transaction. True? Well, sometimes, like anywhere else but when you look at another report by a legal academic, Ruiping Ye, of Victoria University, entitled ‘Chinese in New Zealand: Contract, Property and Litigation (2019), one cannot escape her contention that Chinese in the PRC, after the cultural revolution, were supposed to trust no one, hence made sure all business dealings were documented. Obviously Ye (not from the PRC) thinks that the Cultural Revolution was the most terrible period in recent PRC history but again when you read her paper, there are actually no details of PRC laws given (as if the evil communists don’t have any). She does however go to great lengths to explain that the Chinese ‘traditionally’ subscribe to the common laws promulgated by Confucius, suggesting that lawyers in New Zealand (note her absence of Aotearoa) should acquaint themselves with these Confucian concepts so as to understand Chinese litigants better. This may well be the case for expatriate Chinese who never lived in the PRC, e.g. of Malaysian, Singaporean or Taiwanese extractions. Confucius who is celebrated in the Western World as a great Chinese philosopher and religious leader was of course denigrated by the Chinese communists, closing down many of the temples dedicated to Confucius, eschewing a religious society (Marx: religion is opium for the people). Ye does not even begin to comprehend all the implications, and of course, neither does Mai Chen. I am not an apologist for the PRC government, past or present but if they are accused of capital crimes, let them defend themselves in a court of law that is independent of political, cultural and linguistic bias. As Chomsky has said, the US Government would be found guilty of war crimes in places like Vietnam and Iraq, if held to the same standards used in the Nuremburg trials, and so would be many other Western governments. Obviously the PRC is the last great thorn in the side of the WASPish Western world-view – and if so, say so, and don’t beat about the bush with nice theories about linguistic, cultural and political differences. As a linguist and language teacher I can only repeat what many other bio-linguists and educators have said before me: differences in languages are surface features of a common humanity. Culture is contested. Politics is a class struggle. Only if the workers of the world unite and succeed in their struggle to be free of linguistic, cultural and political oppression, can we save the planet from continuous wars and environmental degradation. 

Addendum: I was going to say something about Einstein’s ‘Theory of relativity’, which is quite a different kettle of fish. This type of scientific relativity, in its simplest terms, is the uncertainty of what moves in the universe ‘relative’ to each other: is it the lift I am in, or is the building moving up or down? When seemingly stationary on a train and another train slowly passes, which train is actually moving? The human eye cannot be certain. If we extend this metaphor to language, culture and politics, we should shy away from all certainties and dogmas (religious and political) and adopt a genuine world-view, common to all languages of the planet, that all people, all life forms and all else, are natural phenomena that can and should exist together in ‘relative’ peace and harmony.

Mai Chen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNnMJOJFEC4

“Europa muss auch die Sprache der Macht lernen” (Europe must also learn the language of power)

“Europa muss auch die Sprache der Macht lernen” (Europe must also learn the language of power)

says Ursula von der Leyen, President-elect of the EU Commission, a former Minister of the German Merkel government, a fundamentalist catholic conservative and right-wing politician. Since action usually comes before language and thought, it is of course a worry that German centrists (as von der Leyen considers herself) are again on the hunt for MACHT (‘power, might’), this time via Europe. This language is reminiscent of the Nazi ideology, made infamous by the likes of Hitler whose constant invocation of MACHT provided the adrenalin for his deluded admirers. In English as in German, these words are as ubiquitous as those for racism, sexism and xenophobia. Whilst some people are beginning to realize that sexist language, for example, is predicated on the use of certain words, hence one could simply ‘outlaw’ or at least discourage from public discourse. After all, so-called obscene language, consisting of certain key vocabulary, is still on the statute books of some jurisdictions. People confused about the principles of ‘free speech’ are told that this entails the freedom to say anything they like as long as it does not annoy those in power, in which case there are so-called libel laws, designed to protect powerful people and corporations from criticism, accusations or verbal attacks. To outlaw ‘power’ would in this sense cut of the legs the powerful people stand on. If the pen is supposed to be stronger than the sword, let’s make a start with ‘power’. The Guardian for example declared to change the discourse about ‘climate change’ by using the term ‘climate crisis’ instead. So, let’s assume that ‘government’ is not to be equated with ‘power to govern a country’ but with something like ‘the task to serve the country’ (sometimes used as a sweetener for people who are sceptical about too much power). The current power plays executed by all sorts of mad presidents in power are testament to this fatal obsession. It is interesting to note that in the business sector the equivalent to ‘power’ is ‘leadership’ – a notion that Hitler combined with MACHT to absolute disastrous effect, namely to call himself FÛHRER ‘leader’ who wants MACHT ‘power’ at all costs. While post-war German governments have ‘outlawed’ certain symbols of Nazi ideology (like the Swastika) there have not been any attempts to outlaw or even discourage the language of Nazism, under the pretext that this would stifle genuine discussion and debate. Anti-Semitic slurs may be prosecuted but only under a general libel law and newly proposed laws on how to ‘outlaw’ so-called hate speech. So, amidst such sensitivities comes von der Leyen, and à la Nietzsche, philosophizes with a hammer. Whilst I have always maintained that Nietzsche’s Wille zur Macht ‘the will to power’ did not spawn Nazi ideology (as for example argued by Bertrand Russell), there will be comparisons with Leyen’s pronouncements, however misplaced they may be. Leyen, contrary to Nietzsche’s philosophy, aspires to abysmal political and military power for Europe (and Germany), wanting to match US, Chinese and Russian (and whoever joins in) power plays, making Europe great again as a non-sequitur. Leyen is going to give Europeans a language lesson on how to use power as raison d’être, pushing military metaphors, preparing for war to defend peace, to fight terror, to roll back feminism, to bring back the power of the Vatican, his God willing (who is of course the absolute power). Neo-feudalism, the Holy Roman Empire in republican guise, the corporate aristocracies, the grand conferences of the great powers to divide up the rest of the globe and its mineral wealth, the grand dames (von der Leyen – what’s in a name?), queens and presidents’ wives, the photo opportunities, to be in the news 24/7, to revel in the attention of the ‘people’ who have voted for you – and in the end be close to divine inspiration, that is power, that is MACHT. Let’s also not forget this bizarre character, Henry Kissinger, who ordained that ‘power is the greatest aphrodisiac’, subsequently sanctioning the abuse of women, from Clinton to Trump, to name but a few. But let us not fall into the trap and celebrate female power instead. To see the point, recite the list of powerful women who rose above their male counterparts and subsequently ruled the roost, having become indistinguishable in terms of gender and in the lust for bloody wars. No doubt they recited the power mantra every hour of their rule: Oh Lord, give me power, and if you don’t give it to me I will take it from you. So, watch out all you non-Europeans, Europe, led by von der Leyen, is a mighty juggernaut that will roll all over you, subdue you, enslave you, and if necessary seduce you. The EU can speak ‘power’ in some 23 different languages, and Ursula can do it fluently in at least three: German, English and French. Euro-centricity will once again be restricted to the continent of Europe (the Brits can stay on the margins, as ever, and the Russians if they turn the clock back to Tsarist times, speaking French and living in German spas, and generally behaving like good Europeans). Of course, the Americans of German and European descent will be invited to the party as long as they stop going on about how they saved Europe from the Germans, harking back to better times when the principalities of Europe excelled in classical architecture, music, art and Machiavellian power politics, not to speak of the occasional revolution that added spice to the proceedings. Or else, just let’s move forward together with a normal US President who sees the good reason as to why Europe and the USA can share power, at least until all the other powers have been defeated. I mean, what on earth is wrong with this present man, by the good old German name of Trump, pretending to be a rabid American nationalist, when in fact he is the most European president the US ever had? I suppose he lacks political nous, only being interested in economic leadership, doing deals, leading golf courses, leading hotels – being the ultimate business leader. How crass and uneducated the man is! Europe is not for sale, please tell him. Sure he has a great army as well but wait, Ursula, as ex-Defence Minister and leader of the Bundeswehr, will cobble together a European defence force like the world has never seen before. The French Force de Frappe and German generals will combine with the Knights of the Realm (Don Quixote, Hamlet and Othello included) to fly sorties in Airbus planes, protecting oilfields and car factories. The Chinese and the Russians will lay down their arms in view of such formidable foes, and finally submit to a powerful European democracy. For it is this European democracy, that not only confers political and economic power but also spiritual power. Ursula von der Leyen should know: she was first elected and then appointed (and eventually be anointed). 

Someone will, sooner or later, object that banning certain vocabulary will not change Ursula’s thinking but then again language is all she has to express her thoughts. Of course one can argue that even if language and thought depend on each other, there is always the possibility to coin new words or to change the meaning of existing ones to suit one’s train of thought. Comparisons between languages on that front, even closely related ones like English and German, equally do not yield promising results: just because German has retained honorifics, while English has not (unless one addresses the Queen) it does not follow that Germans are somehow more polite or more submissive to authority than English speakers – although there might be some non-linguistic evidence to support such a notion. Banning sexist-gender pronouns seems equally pointless although the introduction of titular Ms to equal Mr seems to have worked. So the point is not to ‘ban’ or outlaw words like MACHT or ‘power’ but to engage in discourse that devalues and discourages such concepts. An alternative strategy – much in use these days – is to exaggerate the use of such words and thus render them ‘useless’ by poking fun at them, satirizing them, using them in black humour and making them the staple expressions of clever cynics. As one on-line comedian/talk-show host has commented, these days the high and mighty, like President Trump, supply all the lines that make you laugh and cry at the same time. The great Bavarian comedian, Karl Valentin, poked fun at Hitler and his regime by having the lights switched off during his show and proclaim that the ‘lights went out’ because of the LEITUNG, which in German is ambiguous between ‘electrical cable’ and ‘leader/ FÛHRER’. Needless to say that comedians cannot defeat dictators and their ilk but sometimes they can take out a bit of the wind from their overblown sails.

That Europe is ever faster lurching to the right (see latest election results from Spain) of the centre must be of great concern of anyone who cares about the future. By investing politicians like von der Leyen, the gates are opened for far more extremist neo-Nazis, like the German AfD and what have you for the rest of the EU. Wilhelm Reich foresaw the future in 1933 but was all too late to forestall the fait accompli. Centrist politicians of the Weimar Republic opened the floodgates for the likes of Hitler, all in the shocking belief that ‘power’ must be maintained for the state, for big business, for morality and family values – and that such ‘power’ must reside, ultimately, with military might, that power resides in the barrel of the gun, that the good foot soldier will resist the insane orders of the powerful generals. Power/MACHT became personified in the FÛHRER, and there was no way back to a civilized Europe and the world. This is what Ursula von der Leyen should ‘un-learn’, namely power/MACHT. Power/MACHT is a dirty word – in any language. If you say this word again, we will have to employ a good-old-fashioned remedy: wash your mouth out with soap and water!

As an addendum, and to dispense more soap and water, there is more evidence of this general malaise from down-under (my place of residence, that also suffers more and more from environmental degradation), in that women’s emancipation as an expression of getting equal rights with men only focuses on getting the right to be equally stupid as men. Take this interview with NZ’s Helen Clark, done by OZ’s Kelly Doust, featuring in the Guardian, and harping on about ‘power’:

What does power mean to you? Power in itself is a neutral concept – I think it can be put to good or bad ends, and I like to think I put it into doing good. For me, it’s about having the platform to build a better, happier, healthier and more inclusive society which is considerate of nature and the environment.

Sorry, Helen, power is not a ‘neutral concept’, and all one can say about your execution of power is that you did less harm than some of your more insane political compatriots in NZ and at the UNDP. In any case, why on earthy did you consent to contribute to a book called The Power Age, A celebration of life's second act, concocted by Kelly Doust, whose claim to fame is having written various monographs on fashion (and no doubt on power-dressing). I suppose you follow the celebrity dictum of better being in some/any news rather than in no news. 

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/ursula-von-der-leyen-erste-grundsatzrede-als-kommissionspraesidentin-a-1295677.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/11/helen-clark-id-like-to-think-i-was-ahead-of-my-time