In South Africa I watched a cultural program aimed at teens hosted by two youths each conversing in their own language, Afrikaans and, English.
Sometimes guests would speak one of eleven official languages, from Zulu to Xhosa... There was no translation, no subtitles. Each responded to the other in their own language. As someone who could only understand English, I was surprised that I could fairly follow the gist of the conversation.
It was a demonstration of profound respect for differences - not tolerance, but respect. I know enough about your language to understand it.
At the time, I was working with a local TV station. Within the walls of the station, employees lived what this South African show provided: profound respect for differences. French and English each spoke in their own native language, but understood the other's language. No translators necessary.
The problem, as I saw it, was that this respect never got translated onto the TV screen. Being a station of one of two language groups in the city, they heartily defended one side on air and misrepresented the other.
The suggestion to air a program with bilingual hosts was met with disbelief. "We defend this language, without us, this language would not have a defender!"
As if these two different languages could not co-exist without being a threat to the other.
Do our differences inherently pose a threat to the "other"?
I am inclined to think so. If not... why the resistance?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi D!
ReplyDeleteI agree that differences inherently pose a threat. Osgood's work on the semantic differential showed a cross-cultural tendency for three factors to emerge: evaluation, potentcy and activity. Thus, there is a general tendency to perceive people in terms of "good-bad", "strong-weak", and "active-passive". From an evolutionary and survival perspective, this just makes sense. If someone is "bad", "strong", and "active", it is fight-or-flight time!
But, what makes someone "bad"? I agree that difference that is "strange" is what does so. Family, of course, is familiar. What is not familiar (what is different) is strange and potentially threatening. ("People are strange, when you're a stranger, faceless look ugly, when you're alone." Name that group!)
As for the role of language and threat, I tend to view language as existential. Language is identity, n'est-ce pas? Culture, and thus language, is a death-denying language game (Becker).
Maslow placed the safety and security needs as prepotent to the love and belonginess needs.
But, then, information eats entropy!
bob
Hey Bob!
ReplyDeleteHmmmm...Wouldn't you be the one to conjure up a (well-loved) song for us?
Is there a difference between death denying and life preserving? I wonder where the line is drawn.
I have just come back from a Leonard Cohen concert which I found deeply satisfying.
"Forget your perfect offering,
There's a crack in every thing.
That's how the Light gets in,
that's how the Light gets in."
When the political right brandies "socialism" like a dirty word meant to scare "true capitalists" (i.e. patriots), I think they fear the crack.
Idem for the lefties crying out "heartless".
We fear the crack and work very hard at patching it. And then... how does the Light come in?