In his article The Relation of Habitual Thought and
Behavior to Language, anthropologist Benjamin Lee Whorf forces the reader
to reevaluate his or her concept of “time” by comparing cultures and their
languages. Along with Edward Sapir, Whorf dedicated his research to the study
of the correlation between language and culture. He sought to explore how these
two components developed together and how the language of a group of people has
the power to shape their perceived reality, and therefore their behavior in
society. In his article, Whorf compares SAE (Standard Average European)
languages to the Hopi language in order to demonstrate that much of the way the
world is perceived is influenced by word choice, grammatical patterns, and
linguistic concepts. One of the most thought-provoking examples provided by
Whorf addresses the how “time” is conceptualized based on language.
Whorf explains that SAE
addresses time as being objective while the Hopi speak of it more subjectively.
SAE uses time units as nouns such as “summer,” “second,” “week,” etc. These
nouns are “pluralized and numerated like nouns of physical objects,” (142)
making time seem like one event after another. The Hopi address time as
something more fluid. “Morning” in SAE would be expressed in Hopi as “while
morning-phase is occurring” and “summer” would be expressed as “when conditions
are hot” or “when heat occurs.” This language creates a perpetual “getting
later” of time rather than defined events occurring one after the other. By
comparing SAE and Hopi, it is clear that phrasing and the interpretation of
time developed together, and define the mental image and understanding of time
by their speakers.
For a native SAE speaker,
the idea that something as important and central as “time” has multiple
interpretations can be shocking. Those who speak languages that originated in
Europe accept segmented definitions of time as “truth.” These “truths” are used
as foundations for science, literature, and everyday life. It is often not even
considered that a concept that is understood to be reality, may simply be just one
result of a simultaneous development of language and culture out of many
similar developments. Our segmented and defined concept of time is integrated
into our daily language, how we organize our life, and how we interpret
reality. It is fascinating to recognize that many people think differently, but
in order to function in an SAE society, it is necessary to adapt and accept the
common manner of conceptualizing “time.” Whorf’s explanation of the concept of
time as being linguistic and cultural is fascinating and mind blowing when
considered for the first time. It makes a person question his or her perceived
reality and accept that what one person understands as an absolute truth may be
different for another.
I would like to agree with Erika that the concept of language so heavily influencing our culture in the way we act as truly mind blowing. Like she said, a concept like time, via our use in language, has integrated itself into not only our daily language but also how we organize our life, interpret reality, and think in general. However, what strikes me the most is the way that such use of language can truly alter our interpretation of reality.
ReplyDeleteThis point was driven home for me by Whorf when he discusses the notion of the word “empty” in reference to gasoline drums. In general, it is true that our behavior will be altered by the presence of gasoline drums, as Whorf says. I am not going to flick a match in the direction of a gasoline drum, instead I take care to avoid them. However, Whorf notes how our behavior changes from caution when these drums are referred to as empty. Yet, our interpretation of the word “empty” lacks specificity; is it empty like a milk jug is empty when you pour the last of it into your cereal, or is it empty like it exists in a vacuum in which there are absolutely no contents? The lack of specificity in English leads us to view them as one in the same in our minds even though looking at the situation now it is clearly not true. So while the gasoline drums might in fact be even more dangerous when “empty” than full due to the presence of flammable vapors, our minds do not make us aware of this potential hazard do to the word’s lack of specificity and therefore to be more relaxed around “empty” drums. Therefore we are surprised when we flick a match toward an “empty” drum of gasoline and are greeted by a firey explosion in response. What is truly surprising to me is how this lack of differentiation occurs within us completely subconsciously and solely due to our word use.
This then has caused me to make the jump toward our most recent investigation of Martin Harris’s “The Epistemology of Cultural Materialism.” Without going into details about the nature of this article, I would like to briefly go into the question of whose thoughts are authoritative in an anthropological investigation, those of the emic or etic perspective? To me, the fact that, as seen in Whorf, our actions are subconsciously influenced by our use of words alone can greatly influence a researcher trying to conduct an investigation from either the emic or etic perspective unless he is a natural speaker of the emic language, which he is most likely not. However, I understand that this is the goal and nature of enthnoscience and cognitive anthropology, and I applaud them for taking on such a task, but I am skeptical as to the success this can have when studying individual cultures during fieldwork. That is, unless, the researcher has time to devote hours upon hours in pain staking interviews to determine native linguistic domains and categorization at a complete level. In my opinion, if language has such an unconscious and subliminal effect on the way we think, act, and live, I don't see how Harris can truly critique the emic and etic perspective without taking into account ethnoscience and the need to understand language as a key determinant of culture as Whorf did. Harris does address this problem to a minor extent when notes that, “…once my assistant was properly trained in the discriminations that were etically appropriate, the eptistemological status of his data is no less etic than my own” (p. 267). Here he is referring to whose categories of classification are used in simple questions like “Who lives here?” the researcher’s or the informant’s? However, to me this does not seem to get at the same level of complexity needed due to the unconscious and sublimated nature of words’ cultural influences
I am more than happy to hear what anyone else has to say on the topic because I am truly intrigued myself,
Pete
Harris, as you probably realize, is directly attacking the ethnoscientists. He doesn't buy the notion that mastering the emic perspective is the primary job of ethnographers, nor does he accept that the emic perspective is inherently embedded in language. You are very perceptive to connect Whorf, ethnoscience and Harris, because the last two at least are in direct conversation with each other.
DeleteI agree with Erika here in that it is makes us question our understanding of absolute truth. Before reading Whorf, I considered saying, “when conditions are hot” as means of saying summer, as an odd thing to do. I never actually thought of “time” as a cultural concept or honestly, even a linguistic one. Something so commonly spoken about in our culture, so important to our culture, can be easily seen in a completely different view to another culture. You can almost always count on hearing a native SAE speaker saying, “there’s not enough time in the day,” or “I ran out of time,” or “I don’t have time to do that,” and it makes you question how other cultures would respond to the ways in which we discuss time.
ReplyDeleteIt fascinates me that SAE speakers make time more definite. There is a past, present and future. And in so we construct our lives around such time. Where as other cultures, such as the Hopi see time in such a different manner.
I find that I like the way in which the Hopi see time better. In a fluid way, rather than something so definitive and, as Erika said, “defined events occurring one after the other.” It would be odd to describe seasons, or periods of the day, it would be more descriptive, but I feel like it would also make the discussion of time, more interesting. Perhaps one day, the ways in which our culture views time and speaks of time will change, not likely, but it would be something incredible to witness if it were to do so, from an anthropological point of view of course.
Glad you found Whorf thought-provoking!
DeleteNice response, Erika! What do you see as the strengths, weaknesses, and range of applicability of Whorf's approach?
ReplyDeleteOne challenge Whorf presents in his own theory is one of maintaining objectivity in studying our own language, and resisting the urge to liken dissimilar languages to our own. Through Whorf’s studies of the Hopi language and Standard Average European (SAE) in his attempt to discover whether the two cultures ascribe to the same concept of time, space, and matter I have to wonder if he successfully maintains objectivity of the two languages. Of course the focus is on the two distinct languages and the ways in which their separate concepts of ‘time, ‘space,’ and ‘matter’ affect the cultural and behavioral norms, but I’m going to dare to question if his correlation is too simplistic. Is language truly as key of a component in the construction of cultural norms or are there other large-scale patterns that affect cultural concepts? Is Whorf’s focus on language arbitrary? Couldn’t we substitute his argue of language with our own arguments of visual medias or instrumental/auxiliary music. These are both mediums of communication that can express meaning.
ReplyDeletePerhaps in playing devil’s advocate I’m a little too devilish. I picked these two options are equivalent mediums because they were sensory ways in which people relay emotion and knowledge...are they actually comparable to the use of linguistic communication as a means of communication? If not, what would be considered comparable? This is not something that Whorf addresses in his work, but he hints at it – saying himself that linguistic communication is a primary means of communication...not the primary means. What other primary or secondary means could there be?