Edward Sapir (1884-1939) was a predecessor of "cognitive anthropology," but we can really categorize him as an American linguist, his notable work being with the Hopi Native Americans. Sapir worked closely with Benjamin Whorf, and many of Sapir's arguments align with the work presented by Whorf; the collaboration between the two culminated in the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. The driving force of Sapir's work, research, and theory is the notion that humans understand and organize the world through language; therefore, language and culture are innately linked - each has important influences upon the other.
Unlike Claude Lévi-Strauss, Sapir was a major advocate of linguistic relativity. A true student of Franz Boas, Sapir exhibits beautiful cultural relativism in his work "The Unconscious Patterning of Behavior in Society." (I'm not exhibiting bias, am I?) Sapir's argued that language (and culture) has varying manifestations and varying meaning. This lack of underlying meaning - that is quite obvious in Lévi-Strauss' theories - promotes the idea that meaning is not necessarily cross-cultural. Sapir calls upon those who disagree to "try the experiment of making a painstaking report of the actions of a group... to which he has not the cultural key" (Sapir, 239). That's a pretty intimidating challenge... Fortunately Sapir gives examples of language / culture that is not cross cultural to support such a challenge, which I will get to after making one more point.
Sapir also distinguishes between individual and social behaviors. The main difference between the two is that individual behavior are conscious while social behaviors (ie - culture and language) are innate or unconscious. Our social behavior and the social phenomena that go along with it happen on a deeper level and are internalized.
A good example that Sapir utilizes in his work that sums up his arguments is the plurality in the English language. We understand and categorize this aspect of our language innately, we don't have to categorize plurality consciously because it is part of our internalized, cultural behavior - it appears to be "self-evident" (Sapir, 241). Our certain representations of plurality lack translation into other cultures / languages, such as the Hopi, for example.
A major element that is lacking in the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is the idea of causality. Though an ardent student of Boas, Sapir's work lacks empirical evidence; it does little to prove that individual behavior is conscious while social behaviors are innate. I believe, however, that Sapir's work on cultural relativity gives us valuable resources to understand cultural differences. Cultural variation is important to understand in social interactions, especially today, when there is much cultural cross-over.
The strengths in Sapir's work may be applied to important cross-cultural interactions. If I should so desire to travel to, let's say, Russia, and wanted to convey ideas with meaning to Russians, I would certainly need a "cultural key" to express my thoughts and understand the meaning behind their cultural practices. It also has important implications for those of us who are attempting to learn other languages (which, as Wake Students, is all of us!) As a Spanish student I had difficulties learning the language, because I had not gained an emic perspective. (A quick caveat - this can become a problem more for Whorf's specialties.) As someone who understands English on the subconscious level I was looking for meaning in the Spanish language. Though, according to Sapir, the different meanings from English language / culture will not necessarily translate into Spanish language / culture. It is important to remember these differences when interacting with and attempting to gain understanding of other cultures.
One thing that I would love to ask of Sapir is regarding his assertions that without that cultural key, I cannot begin to organize meaning from other cultural practices. I like to think that as humans, we have at least some ability to recognize meaning in other culture's practices. I suppose I am somewhere in the middle of the Lévi-Strauss / Sapir scale, and I would absolutely love to hear a debate between the two.
Very nice comments!
ReplyDelete