Pedro,
Well, I know itīs been some time since we started a little discussion about
the degree to which language constrains our possiblities for conceptualizing
self and others. I do want to continue looking at this, mostly because I
have been thinking about it obsessively lately and because it is a bad habit
of mine to think about stuff that comes up on this list and lurking instead
of writing...and since lately thereīs this discussion about participation, I
am feeling a little guilty about this...:)
So, To recap, you offered this quote (and Iīm sorry I lost the source),
"person cannot be in any form for which there is no concept"
And I responded that I was uncomfortable with this notion, because I think
it implies that language constrains us with a certan rigidity, kind of like
the Whorfian linguistic determinism thing that nobody seems to advocate
anymore but I think itīs still there lurking unspoken in the background...
BUT
Then you responded, intriguingly...
"a considerable chunk of our human consciousness is social and depends on
cultural activity and products (tools). Hence language, as a socio-bio
process may indeed be a priori (or co-owned for many of the traits that
define us). If there is no word for "androgenous" for example, then how do
I know that I am androgenous, or macho or gay or facist?? But I know what
you mean. One can be x and know it without language mediation (e.g., hot ,
cold, hungry but how about "achievement motivated","assertive"??)"
OK. So I think a key here is that language is culturally constructed, not
the other way around. So that we know we are androgenous whether or not
there is a word for androgenous. But we have a word for androgenous that is
in fact quite significant and emotionally charged...itīs not that we donīt
get to be androgenous in a society whose language has no word for
androgeny...itīs that we can express that androgeny has a certain
categorical significace...well, Iīm not just a person who has male and
female characteristics...Iīm "androgenous" with now all the associations and
cultural baggage that comes with it. So, yeah, I guess in a way that does
change how I and others can conceptualize me...
And I really like your question using achievement motivated as an example.
I think because language changes based on social needs/pressures, I think
the English language (for one, the one I know) has changed in relatively
recent times to include such words as "achievement motivated" and "learning
disabled" I guess you can say that achievement motivation and learning
disability didnīt exist before these terms came about, anyway I think they
didnīt, thanks to Ray McDermott and his epiphany-inducing writings to this
effect. People had certain characteristics that we now use to "diagnose"
these conditions...but they never had these things because they donīt exist
as legitimate categories without a word to describe them. OK. I can go
there.
Well, Pedro, I never before thought about the relationship between two
apparently contradctory ideas I had in my head...my resistance to thinking
that language constrains my thinking, and the idea that the existence of
linguistic categories make things possible to exist. Wow. Thatīs
interesting. Thanks for the nudge...
Renee (trying really hard not to lurk)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:54:03 PST