Tuesday, June 2, 2015


The Struggle of Language and Conception

By Malik Sekou OSEI

The struggle of language and conception has in struggle its approach of linguistic relativism and linguistic innatism whose general clouds denial the developmental social nature of language and language uses. Also too, this question also uses the “Base” as substructure question and the “Superstructure” as cultural rationality of actual “power” and power relations.

    For the polemic here is: can the slave use the language of the slave master to his liberation and self-determination and when the slaves negates the existence of the slave master can the slave still uses the language of the slave master to conceptualize his social transition.

    For language has always played a role in transitioning or rationalizing non-transition. Within certain social tension always plays the role of subterfuge, for all things are political even words.  

    I will make this a very short and direct without long speculation as the usual academic subterfuge of de-contextualizes imprudence, meaning something only to be explained away. To deny the social nature of human social development is to speculate and to rationalize, irrational social relations. For no society creates institutions for the destruction of that society or at least undermined it in the realm of explanation. 
      As we are force to examine the question of language without being speculatively linguistic, meaning totally to abstract out of practical social relevance. The question of how do we get language? Is the question that has to be answered and this comes from the social nature of humanity, through labor to humanize their environment.  For language is the necessary flower out of the social nature of humanity, through labor, the need for survival and the conception of actual development through cooperation. Language has a very important role in consolidating development, by giving clarity to reality by honing practice and cooperation.

      However, in our contemporize time language is not used to provide clarity, but it is used to rationalize the social irrationalize and to rationalize social dysfunction of conspicuous consumption as a denial and escape from reality and illusion.

       This is why young people don’t master language skills, because American English is meaningless. And so-called “Black” English is just empty styling of a form of poetic words of subterfuge, because preciseness is not needed in quicken slang in social ontology. For without productive labor, language loses its power of social function and only becomes whimsical and entertaining. The thing that has to be added to the pre-linguistic internality to consolidate language …is labor.

     For it is usually forgotten is there is a dialectical relation between “Thought” and “language” by social need and necessary.

      For the development of language gives us convention and syntax for meaning or the terms of meaning that comes from outside of subjective introspection and subjective sensibilities of need based on the objective social need, meaning development.

       Intended for “meaning” comes from interrogating the world through cooperation or confrontation in struggle to humanize the reality of the world of production of being able to make a living to live.

       Without actual “power” language only become the intention of “wishful thinking” a subjective remedy of never having to realistically confront reality in a materialist manner or mode.   

       For linguistic is a branch of science that deals in the systematic accounts and explanations of the phenomena of a particular language and the explanations and elaborations of it conceptual systems and theories that give clarity of the use of language. It relates languages and their diversities, clarifies and elucidates the likenesses and distinctions among them, and tries to fashion theories that give formal and practical explanations of the characteristics of language. While it tries to answer a number of philosophical questions, like what is the origin of human language and what is it place within society, and its relation to thought and reality.

     One of the struggles of the questions that have to be addressed is relevant to linguistics or linguistic philosophy is what is the essence or nature of language. As “materialist” on this question of language must begin with the thesis of the unity of material-social activity and language. Accordingly, communication is not just one function of language. On the opposing nature of language and language use, language presumes, both logically and factually, the communication and engagement among people language like consciousness, only arises from “need,” the necessity of intercourse with other people. Henceforth a characteristic thesis is that a radical linguistic theory is that language is essentially, not just a discipline of chance, but is a social phenomenon. This supposition linked with the evidence concerning the joint estimation of consciousness and language, primarily supports the thesis of the social nature of consciousness. The issue here that what has to be fought is with bourgeoisie innatism meaning the theory stressing the innate—the biological determination of the aptitude and capacity of language. While in relation to innatism of language, as radicals we are also critical of the logical possibility of a “private language” of solely speaking to one’s self. However, the most insightful thesis is that language like consciousness originates from work.

     Another set of issues that has to be addressed in a linguistic materialist fashion is the problem of the interrelation of language, thought and reality. Rendering to these estimations, language and thought form an undividable unity with respect to their performance as well as their origins: for language is the mode of being thoughts. The actual conceptions and actual phrasing has its roots in post-Kantian and German idealist philosophy. This sets up a linguistic relativism that linguistic structures determine different ways of thinking the world outside looks. However most radical linguists are forced to reject linguistic relativism, since radical linguists generally take one form of another of reflective theory as their argument of undertaking and place emphasis on the universality of the forms of human thought, the contradictions thus occurring could be answered in a number of ways.

     The universality of human thinking could be related to the universality linguistic structure described by language typology. This approaches universality from the point of view of language forms.

      Another approach could be the subsumption of speech under the category of activity as it appears in speech act theory, or tracing language back to labor as the universal condition of human life.

      Our last approach as radicals linguists is to relate linguistic theory to relation to social class and ideology and race and social class within race and ultimately to ideologies. Considering at this point it can be interpreted on the level of semantics. This is why people of the same category of race speak two entirely different languages, because of class and access to formal training. For ideas can never exist outside of language.

      What this shows is that linguistic usage always displays the imprint of class relation and ideologies and race impositions of violence and the power of the rulers that extends to the use of language itself.

       Now the question become slightly more difficult: does language have the character of the superstructure, as the ideology embedded in it does?
      But our approach does not presuppose any more than the society has taken in general, meaning the necessarily collective nature of human activity. While its interrelation with tangible social-ideological structures is communicated on the level of special sub-codes of linguistic practice and custom, the empirical aspects of that interrelation now belong to the area of sociolinguists.

     The one area of intellectual confrontation is the liberal venue of explaining all contradiction away without negating contradiction through emotional sentimentalism.  And this was only a very short introduction to this subject.

     For as we master the use of language skills and development, we can approach skills, technology and pedagogy on a must more qualitative basis with higher levels of rigor and results. While language and linguistic understanding has a role in social development but it must be materially based with real goals and objectives that must be wages against backward ideas.

     For if understanding language is significant to our existence and growth. While we are stifled in understanding the geneses and repercussions of our words, thus we cannot communicate our thoughts effectively and coherently thus we are still would be stuck in a paper bag we cannot not break out of, because we lack the tools of imagination and rigor.
     For history is on our side, but not time…       


No comments:

Post a Comment