Taking
root in his Boasian education, Sapir’s argument in The Unconcious Patterning of Behavior in Society is summarized in
the idea that the variation observed in human behavior is not a result of human
biological variation, but instead is the result of variation in culture in
which those individuals are enculturated. Sapir states that, “all cultural
behavior is patterned”, through which he means that all behavior of an
individual can be “generalized [as a] mode of conduct that is imputed to
society rather than to the individual” (Sapir 238-239).
Through
the cognitive anthropology movement, Sapir was able to formulate the idea that each
society and culture had a set of “unconscious” rules and regulations through
which individuals in that society know intuitionally how to conduct themselves.
Sapir utilized the differences in language between cultures as the key to
understanding the different world views of different cultures, and as such
studying a culture’s language would provide insight into how differing cultures
perceive the world around them.
Even
though Sapir advocates for historical particularism throughout the study of
language, he advocates the idea that it is better for individuals in a society
to be unconscious of their own behavioral patterns. He thinks that only those
who business it is to study social patterns, should be aware that these
patterns exist as he believes that being conscious of these social patterns is
“unhealthy” to society as a whole (Sapir 246).
Sapir’s
original thesis that language is able to shape the world view of each culture
is convincing. I definitely think that the language one is initially taught as
a young child will shape the way that individual views the rest of the world
and how that individual responds to their experiences throughout their life.
The most obvious
example is grammatical gender – the use of gendered subject pronouns. In
Spanish, a noun with an “el” pronoun is masculine, while a noun with a “la”
pronoun is masculine. Examples of el pronouns are often items associated with
masculinity and strength such as “el puente” (a bridge), which needs to be
strong and fixed in their position.
Another example would be the differences
between “la manzana” (an apple) and “el manzano” (an apple tree). The fruit of
the tree is feminine in that it can be viewed as precious, and easily
damageable. Whereas, the tree itself is masculine, in that it has a large,
broad, strong trunk and branches. Through this, personalities are gifted
through language to inanimate objects, and as a result have a startling impact
upon how speakers of each language view the world around them.
However,
it is important for all individuals to be conscious of the impact that language
has upon their culture and the impact of both culture and language upon their
behavioral patterns, not just those who are studying it. Being conscious of
such revelations can help individuals to make more informed decisions and allow
individuals to use language to its upmost capability. Additionally, with such
business today being done internationally, cross-cultural communication is
especially important, thereby making the understanding of language and the
impact it has on others imperative to success in our modern, ever-connected
world.
Sapir, Edward. "The Unconscious Patterning of
Behavior in Society [1927]." Readings for A History of Anthropological
Theory. By Paul A. Erickson and Liam D. Murphy. Toronto: University of
Toronto, 2013. 237-46. Print.
Thank you for this post, Meredith! I had trouble with this reading, personally (maybe I was the only one), and this helps a lot. I just had one question: what about some words in Spanish that are masculine/feminine that maybe couldn't easily fall into those categories? I cannot remember off the top of my head any examples, but I feel like with the creation of new technologies and ideas there were words that were masculine that didn't have any correspondence to masculinity as we see it, and the same for newer ideas that use the "la" pronoun but aren't exactly feminine either. Although I could just be way off base on this as I don't remember much of my own Spanish education. But if that is the case, how do you (or anybody else who reads my comment) think Sapir would explain 1) the sudden shift from using masculine/feminine characteristics to just putting an object in a category and 2) how this would change the world view of, say, those who speak Spanish as a primary language?
ReplyDeleteMeredith-
ReplyDeleteI think that you very effectively identified Sapir’s main hypothesis regarding language and culture- namely that one’s primary language shapes his/her cognitive processes and ultimately shapes an entire cultural pattern of thinking. Known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, this description of linguistic relativity has been widely accepted, which is interesting to me because for me, culture and language are almost like the chicken and the egg; which came first and how do you know? This is a realization that I had the other evening while tutoring a student in an introductory linguistics class, while trying to explain this very hypothesis. He asked me how we know which, culture or language, shapes the other one and I was unsure how to answer him, other than reinforcing the ideas that Sapir and Whorf put forward on the subject.
Sapir expresses the opinion that the development of a particular language, and therefore particular thought process, comes before and subsequently shapes a culture. But what if a culture is the reason a certain linguistic tendency or grammatical rules are developed? It is now commonly accepted that one’s environment has a significant influence over his/her thoughts and behaviors, and therefore is also highly responsible for the creation of culture. So what is to prevent someone from claiming that it is environment that creates a specific culture, which then develops a language to fit its needs? (Perhaps this is to come- I have not yet read ahead in the theorists we will cover).
One other thing I would like to address in your analysis of Sapir is your chosen example of engendering nouns as the “most obvious” example of Sapir’s hypothesis. Though I definitely agree that this is an example, I do not believe it to be the most prominent nor the best fit when illustrating his point, at least in the particular aspects you point out. What Sapir was describing was even greater than simply an association we may make with the “gender” of a noun in the grammar and the noun itself. For even this is culturally relative- not all cultures associate “feminine” with “vulnerable” or “masculine” with “strong.” So for those cultures, a feminine ending may have nothing to do with adjectives or interpretations related to the gender label for the noun-ending or article. Rather, Sapir’s hypothesis emphasizes that our grammatical structures place limits on our expression of our perceptions of reality. So, to take the example of having different endings that make a noun “male” or “female,” this speaks more to a gender binary that then exists within a culture. Because nouns are separated into two categories in this language’s grammar, many things in that language’s culture are most likely separated into two opposing categories. Furthermore, it may shape a culture in a way that places prominence on gender over other qualities- and yes, as you explained, the stereotypical qualities associated with those gender categories.
I am so intrigued by Sapir’s analysis of language and culture, but overall the hypothesis totally blows my mind!! Thanks for posting about Sapir, and getting the conversation going about conversation!
Meredith, I would like to thank you for your post as well. You very concisely and clearly articulated what I, as well, thought were Sapir's main points and arguments regarding the unconscious patterning of behavior in society. I wanted to address your point on how Sapir's thesis was about how language was able to shape the world view of a culture. I actually interpreted his main point a little different, which may also help answer Jacob's questions. To me, it seemed as if language did not shape world view but rather represented the worldview of a specific culture. It seemed to me that he used language as an example of a behavior and tried to show that there are mechanisms that essentially unconsciously pattern this behavior of language. Take for example, the Indian language, Yana, that Sapir mentioned and how a single word can be used to express "Shall I have the people move across the river to the east?" The way in which various elements of word construction fall perfectly into place to form this question does not shape their world view as much as it represents their worldview. Sapir mentions how the first element in the verb complex indicates several people moving together and how the second element in the complete word indicates moving from one area to another. These elements in themselves are manifestations of the worldview of the culture but also the complex and underlying framework that essentially shapes worldview. Therefore, to answer Jacob's question, I would say that putting an object in a specific category is itself a unique type of unconscious patterning that is representative of either a change in the worldview. And to answer both of Jacob's questions, I would say that such a shift from the use of masculine/ feminine characteristics to putting an object in a category is a representation of a shift in worldview and even different mechanisms that pattern behavior.
ReplyDeleteWow, great discussion all around. You guys capture many of the perspectives on and puzzlements about linguistic relativity. I agree that crew need to be cautious about attributing semantic value (meaning) to grammatical gender. Now where it really gets interesting is where gender creeps into languages that normally don't attribute gender to inanimate nouns, e.g. Storms, countries and vehicles in English.
ReplyDelete