There is an African tribe, the Himba, who are the subject of a lot of modern research on language and how it relates to cognitive function. What makes the Himba unique is that they have 5 words for color categories (compared to the roughly 11 we have). So, for instance, the Himba use the same color to describe both milk and water. But what makes this really interesting in terms of signification is an exeriment researchers carried out with the Himba, in which members of the tribe were shown a screen with 12 panels of color on it (11 of which would be identical) and were asked to pick the odd one out. What they found is that while the subjects were able distinguish between shades of green that are subtle enough to be almost indiscernible to Western eyes, they couldn't tell the difference between 11 panels of green and 1 panel of blue. The reason for this is the Himba use the same word for that shade of blue and that shade of green. And it turns out that once we start learning words for colors, we use our left-brain (our language centers) to interpret those colors according to the words we have for them (but as infants, we see color entirely with our right-brain).
So I found this fascinating, and while I have a hard time even beginning to unpack its implications in terms of Locke or Richards and Ogden, I thought it might be fun to try (in retrospect, it was more existentially upsetting than fun), or at least pose it for someone else to puzzle out.
My take on it is that both articles agree that signs represent things and ideas, but neither blames the inadequacy of symbolic communication on a lack of symbols. Rather, because the symbols have no connection in nature, they are dependent on a sort of social construct that is flawed in a number of ways (geographic and historic context, culture, intentional misuse, etc). But after watching this report, I feel like something isn't lining up for me. I get the impression that symbols are an incredibly limiting factor, not only in terms of communication, but in how we experience reality itself, and Richards and Ogden seem to agree to some extent when they point out that language and symbols influence human Thought (pg 1274). But they later say, "It is not always new words that are needed, but a means of controlling them as symbols" (pg. 1278). But what if we have no control?
This is where things get confusing for me, and where the agency paradox springs up again. I get the sense that Richards and Ogden are implying that there is an active choice in coming up with new symbols or controls in the first place. But the Himba aren't just lacking a word that distinguishes blue from green, or an ability to properly control the symbols attached to each. They're using ambiguous words, which Locke warns about, to the effect that they're no longer able to even see the reality behind the symbols. In that way, the Himba lose all agency in making observations based in reality. That seems to be a much stronger claim than is made in either article.
To make matters worse, while the symbols we choose are indeed arbitrary, they are at least chosen based on observations about the world around us (in an attempt to categorize and understand it in order to communicate something about it). However, we are obviously far less conscious of this appropriation of symbols than we want to believe (it's a matter of subconscious utility, I would argue). What I mean is that even though I can consciously make up a new symbol for something I see, I can't make one for what I don't see. So it seems that insofar as symbols are limiting, from the moment they are introduced to us, they may literally blind us in our ability to accurately convey, or even see, the true reality in anything, even something as basic as a color. To frame it as a question: what happens when, in trying to understand and discuss the world around us, or to convey an idea about that world, the symbols we utilize to do so are simultaneously those things that prevent us from accessing reality's true essence? And does the accumulation of symbols solve this, or only further blind us to more aspects of reality?
I'm reminded of Locke's fourth qualification in point 5 (pg. 818), in which he says that it is difficult to learn and retain words, "where the signification of the word and the real essence of the thing are not exactly the same." He goes on to imply that, "[those words] which are not intelligible at all, such as ... any simple ideas which another has not organs or faculties to attain; as the names of colours to a blind man," aren't intelligible at all.
To the Himba, the sky is black. Nothing makes sense to me anymore.
(You can Youtube "BBC: Do You See What I See," if you're interested).
1 comment:
I would like to bring in a few things for consideration here. This is a really interesting post and I'm really fascinated by what you have brought up so far. I have never heard of the Himba tribe, however I have heard of another tribe who uses language differently. I cannot recall where exactly they are from or anything, but I think adding them into this conversation might help unpack a few of the ideas you have brought up.
This particular tribe has no words for "left," "right," and presumably "front" and "back." Instead, they say "East," "West," "North," and "South." When someone recalls a story from years ago they would say something like "when the boat crashed I jumped out the West side and John jumped out the East side."
Now so far this is only an interesting tidbit, but how could it offer any real change? Think of the orientation of their directions. It's entirely based on a force outside themselves. Our own system is very egocentric; everything revolves around us. To these people, all things are found in relation to the sun, not themselves. Imagine the implications in thought for such a simple shift in focus.
Now, to address one other point you brought up that I found very interesting. Can language limit our ability to think? As you have pointed out, the answer is, to an extent, yes. The Himba people are physically unable to identify certain color variations because of the words they have learned. However, the brain is a wonderfully flexible being which means that it can adapt to new thinking. So it is certainly possible for people to learn new words and think differently about them. In such a fundamental and everyday concept as colors, this could mean an entire worldview shift.
But what of words that have nothing to do with colors? What about words that have no direct basis with nature: abstract words? If anything, I think that these words are the most subject to conceptual change. While they are perhaps limiting to an extent, any single person can gather a deeper understanding of the concept itself and thus expand the limitation of the word. This may even go so far as to produce new words to break such intellectual barriers as ineffectual words.
I think this highly possible, especially if the right brain comes into play. I also think that the right brain is most certainly able to come into play. I remember being in France on a school exchange trip. I had begun to think in French since that is what we were constantly speaking and hearing. When a word came up I didn't know, I felt the sense of it without any linguistic connection. The same thing can happen in normal, everyday speech. You describe a situation and then come to a feeling you cannot describe with the words you have. You may use several words, figurative language, or even just an approximation of what you're looking for, but the fact remains that you know that you are speaking about something outside of your vocabulary. This is, I believe, what rests on the side for the freedom of our conceptions from our own language.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.