Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Language and Collectivism

Rate this topic


StrictlyLogical

Recommended Posts

I think it is safe to hypothesize that culture and in particular collectivism (in a collectivist society) has an influence on language, what words are used, how they are interpreted, assumptions of meanings etc.

 

My question is:

 

Does language itself contribute to collectivism as such?

 

 

i.e. do the conversations worded in terms of "we", and "us", and "our" etc. rather than "one", or "I" or "my" etc. when speaking of important or political or ethical issues tend to affect how a person thinks about those issues?  I'm noticing such an orientation particularly in radio and television commentators/personalities, and I wonder how it affects (even subliminally) the audience.

 

Does referring to something like "society" or  "the country" or "Man" or "Mankind" more often than "a person" or "an individual" or "I" or "me" tint the conversation such that people start to think in terms of "collectives" "communes" and collectivisation etc. being the normal perspective rather than "the one" being the proper perspective?

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have noticed what you are saying, but I've seen it as more of an "effect" that  collectivism (and altruism) is the "cause".  An interesting argument can be made that it becomes a circular loop at that point, but still the langauge is a reflection of trends as a whole.   It's also more wide spread than that.  For example, in economic news today everything is always refered back to national numbers. Krugeman recently white washed Detroit's bankruptcy (and similar financial issues) by claiming the numbers are a minor proportion of the "National Economy".  You can find the trend in many places if you dig (aka Philosophic Detective). 

Edited by Spiral Architect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite lately is the federal notice at the beginning of DVDs.

 

It starts out well:

 

"Piracy is not a victimless crime."

 

and ends lamely:

 

"for more information on how digital theft harms the economy please visit.."

 

 

what happened to the victims?  So are we to feel bad about the "economy"?  I suppose "IT" is the victim that suffers harm?  So sad.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience, (natural) languages (at least the ones I speak) can be adapted very easily to whatever one wishes to communicate.

When the users of a language decide to communicate a different viewpoint, they can do so far too easily to suggest that a language, by itself, is somehow a contributing factor to restricting or influencing the ideas its speakers can communicate.

My favorite lately is the federal notice at the beginning of DVDs.

 

It starts out well:

 

"Piracy is not a victimless crime."

 

and ends lamely:

 

"for more information on how digital theft harms the economy please visit.."

 

 

what happened to the victims?  So are we to feel bad about the "economy"?  I suppose "IT" is the victim that suffers harm?  So sad.

That's not the language's fault, that's the government's fault. In general, when various authorities (governments, universities, the media, school boards, churches, etc.) try to define their way into being right, and people choose to follow along or are forced to follow along, that doesn't prevent anyone from easily contradicting them using the language.

Just because some legal body defines "a person" as an unborn fetus, for instance, and most people agree, that doesn't mean they changed the language. And even if they DO somehow manage to actually change the language to have "person" mean both the born and the unborn, they will have achieved nothing. Anyone who wishes to distinguish between the two can still EASILY do so, either by using existing phrases (i.e. "a born person"), or making up a new word.

P.S. It's of course theoretically possible to create a language that would make it seriously difficult to disagree with someone. But that's not a power anyone has over natural languages spoken by millions, in practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is safe to hypothesize that culture and in particular collectivism (in a collectivist society) has an influence on language, what words are used, how they are interpreted, assumptions of meanings etc.

 

My question is:

 

Does language itself contribute to collectivism as such?

 

 

i.e. do the conversations worded in terms of "we", and "us", and "our" etc. rather than "one", or "I" or "my" etc. when speaking of important or political or ethical issues tend to affect how a person thinks about those issues?  I'm noticing such an orientation particularly in radio and television commentators/personalities, and I wonder how it affects (even subliminally) the audience.

It is a good question. There's a quote which is fairly relevant by Salman Rushdie:

"Language is courage. The ability to conceive a thought, to speak it, and by doing so, make it true."

OK, bearing in mind he is a novelist, but this reflects inherent primacy of consciousness, shared by the majority.

It would be totally ineffective on any here, but don't underestimate its power; collectivism is replete with trigger words and phrases, reinforcing itself (psychologically) until they become subconsciously accepted as truisms. There are so many levels to that 'philosophy'.

If I hear one more politico, speechifying about "Our people"...

!!!

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about, "This is the United States of America--the richest nation on earth. Surely we can afford to provide everyone with free health care (or substitute your own form of need fulfillment)." This is rank nationalism/patriotism. Patriotism is a nasty form of collectivism. You should not be known by your associations but rather by who you are. Virtue does not come through associations.

 

Another collectivist phrase is "social justice". This is particularly pernicious.

 

Many people refer to "their city" or "their team" and a large number of advertising monies are spent to promote these feelings. Even worse, national soccer teams help to provide a collectivist spirit. Regional American football teams give much less of a collectivist sense, but they may still give something of a regionalist spirit. The Olympics help to foster patriotic sympathies. These are institutions more than language, but they contribute to language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an example not of language but of sheer tribalism/nationalism (personal identity cannibalism?)

 

 

It was a news piece about  an establishment that won a prestigious national beer competition (in a country I will not name) the establishment being in a particular STATE.

 

 

From bad:

 

The on site news person (at the establishment), tells a patron about the accomplishment and asks what they think...

(since what people in the street think is necessarily always news worthy...)

 

 

to worse:

 

The patron lights up with enthusiasm and states (raising a drink) "Yay! Way to go [sTATE]"

 

 

to worst:

 

The news editor/producer decided to run the piece as is.

 

 

Congratulations STATE!  Not congratulations John and the staff of the establishment. 

 

Recognition of achievement apparently does not need to recognize an achiever. 

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be sure, I agree with those pointing out the collectivist-language often used in the media. It is annoying to be in the presence of people referring to their favorite sports team as "we," as if that person were on the team, performing great athletic acts. I also find it slightly annoying to be addressed in the collect, such as, "how are we doing," especially when the person speaking is serving a table, or some such action. The server is not the individual at the table, obviously, and neither are they a member of the group sitting at the table. When a co-worker greets you, "how are we doing," what are "we" supposed to say? After generations of misuse of the pronoun "we," will our species become the sub-human cattle depicted in "Anthem"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about, "This is the United States of America--the richest nation on earth. Surely we can afford to provide everyone with free health care (or substitute your own form of need fulfillment)." This is rank nationalism/patriotism. Patriotism is a nasty form of collectivism. You should not be known by your associations but rather by who you are. Virtue does not come through associations.

 

Another collectivist phrase is "social justice". This is particularly pernicious.

 

Many people refer to "their city" or "their team" and a large number of advertising monies are spent to promote these feelings. Even worse, national soccer teams help to provide a collectivist spirit. Regional American football teams give much less of a collectivist sense, but they may still give something of a regionalist spirit. The Olympics help to foster patriotic sympathies.

I suppose as a sort of explanatory shorthand, "we", "our" (team, country) is harmless enough- since you are aware of your context.

As you indicate though, many aren't.

It's all to do with making the implicit, explicit, otherwise fatal premises become established by repetition.

My favourite is the common phrase "human dignity". I mean, which callous person can deny people their "dignity"? A noble ideal, surely?

What is dignity? Who requires it? Why? Will it be at cost to others? Can it be given? How can (somehow) imparting dignity on some, and making them dependent on others - accomplish pride or dignity?

The questions expose the collectivists' premise...force, guilt and contempt for humanity.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be sure, I agree with those pointing out the collectivist-language often used in the media. 

You mean their choice of words? A person's choice of words isn't his "language". Yes, I'm aware of "language" being used in that sense, but do you really think it's helpful to use it that way in a thread that's about the primary meaning of the word "language"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This discussion is helping me to clarify my point/question:

 

 

Obviously a collectivist will use "we", "us" etc. in ways which purposefully convey the collectivist content of his/her message.  This is certain.

 

If, however, an individualist uses terms such as "we" "us" etc. out of laziness and not specifically FOR indicating a collectivist idea, but to refer to people in general... (because of a habit of doing so when speaking to others...) does this usage, which is not intentional, reinforce collectivist meanings in young impressionable people, people not yet decided re. collectives and individuals, etc., people overhearing conversations?

 

 

More directly:

When a significant proportion of individualists use collectivist language unintentionally are they unwittingly contributing to actual collectivism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SL, At the very least, they are not opposing collectivism, while not contributing, exactly.

It is lazy habit, one I have to pull myself up on at times.

(You'll see this quote at page bottom here occasionally: "Watch you thoughts, they become your words; watch your words, they become your actions;

watch your actions, they become your habits; watch your habits, they become your character; watch your character, it becomes your destiny". Patrick Overton.)

Point is, in a strongly collectivist culture, I have observed that people are disturbed by anybody asserting - "I".

Disturbed by him or her, without knowing exactly why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You mean their choice of words? A person's choice of words isn't his "language". Yes, I'm aware of "language" being used in that sense, but do you really think it's helpful to use it that way in a thread that's about the primary meaning of the word "language"?

StrictlyLogic and whyNOT have offered sufficient responses. Collectively, I thank them. Nicky, while I (think I ) understand your distinction between "language" and "choice of words," I believe that at some point the English language will need to shift more toward a common idiom that places a higher value on individualism and reason. This includes common platitudes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...