The Role and Essence of Language in Life - Assignment Example

Language Language Ludwig Wittgenstein is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century because of groundbreaking thoughts that he developed for intellectual and contemporary life. Wittgenstein emphasizes on the role and essence of language in life. This explains why his works tackle semantics, logic, and philosophy of mind and other diverse social and philosophical concepts. The philosopher views language as relative and perceive words as means of connoting a given meaning. This means that the presence of meaning precedes the existence of words. Wittgenstein, therefore, believes that most of the philosophical problems are embedded in language. Jacques Derrida similarly presents his lingual dilemma in an influential phrase. H says that although he uses a particular language, he does not own the very language. Jacques is interested in language as a mark of identity and view the two spheres as inseparable. These quotes provides a philosophical onset which an organization can use in fine-tuning their management. Wittgenstein’s view and Derrida’s views are irreconcilable because of notable reasons. Wittgenstein argues that individuals still confront the same philosophical problems because language does not change to reflect new realities. Although the philosopher’s arguments are abstract, he believes that language should adapt to transforming social contexts rather than inform the social contexts. Language arises to express the meaning already embedded in the social contexts. He explains that words have a role beyond representing objects (Wittgenstein 1973, p. 43). This higher role pertains to meaning, which is the most essential part of philosophical discussions. Wittgenstein aspires to give language a liberating from the traditional perceptions that binds its growth. In addition, he emphasizes on the role of contexts in bringing out different meanings of the same word. The philosopher, therefore, pays attention to the contexts from which language grow. In this sense, language may not have any distinct formula as espoused by Western traditional standards. In the contemporary context, Wittgenstein explains the meaning of a word as referring to the sense in which individuals hold the meaning as true. This explains why the philosopher highlights logic as only concerned with the conforming meaning of a sign. The meaning that comes forth emanate from the given rules that guide the usage of the sign (Muhr, Sorensen & Vallentin 2010, p. 82). This refers to the common term of grammatical sense. By describing the use pf language in the contemporary society, Wittgenstein then explains the appropriate use of grammar. He explains, for instance, that the words, mind and table, are given the same grammatical sense. He proceeds to argue that philosophical problems, sometimes, occur when language is transported from the natural environment to the metaphysical environment, which is entirely a different world. This suggests that in order to accord meaning, language should stay in their context. In the end, language is a game whereby words can be subjected to multiple uses that bring out multiple meanings. Wittgenstein’s philosophy is contradictory in a slight sense. On one hand, the philosopher explains that the use of a word is entirely embedded in its context. On the other hand, he criticizes philosophers for using words in the metaphysical contexts instead of the actual environment in which such words are normally used (Stapleton 2008, p. 38). These two viewpoints are reconciliatory in a way that is not open. In essence, Wittgenstein argues that philosophers in dealing with real life problems should apply language that synchronizes with the context that the given philosophy addresses. If philosophy fails to identify with the ordinary context in which language springs, it continues to have unsolved problems. Derrida also offers a contextual analysis of language by arguing that language exists as itself. This means that although language is a property, no one actually owns it. Language, therefore, is a property of itself. Derrida bases his arguments in his complex heritage and identity that denies him the chance of having a distinct cultural attachment. Derrida does not know whether he should define himself as an Algerian, Jew, or French. He, therefore, concludes that identity is contextual. In this sense, language lends identity to the individual (Derrida 1998, p. 1). Unlike the popular opinion that identity effuses language, Derrida proposes that identity is a product of language. This explains why identity is immediate and it is difficult for an individual to dissociate oneself from the language that one speaks. In a large sense, Derrida argues that as long as he uses the French language, he is bound top the given identity. These philosophers diverge on the concept of time. Derrida emphasizes in the metaphysics of time by explaining that an individual can use multiple languages given one’s environment. On the other hand, Wittgenstein, in referring to context, entirely ignores the concept of time. This is because he views context as entirely depending on the activity of given individuals and the society. Derrida, however, examines of language by devoting his thoughts to the individual rather than the society. Since an individual is an inherently mobile subject, one’s identity and language use is bound to change as regards new contexts. It is crucial to highlight that although their concept of language as springing out of context converge, Derrida views language as a cause of the context rather than as a product of the same. In essence, Wittgenstein analyzes language from the context-end, while Derrida analyzes language from its own end. These views are vital to business and management students because of notable reasons. Language is a primary part of life and it permeates into the business realm. Businesses and organizations cannot survive without communication. Communication is not just used in its raw sense, but it is also manipulated to achieve varying purposes. The existence of departments such as the human resource management entirely depends on the language created between the employees and the management (Cooren 2014, p. 178). The human resource manager in one’s capacity mediates and manages the language that occurs between the management. Besides, language is used to lay down strategies and communicate results to stakeholders of an organization. Derrida and Wittgenstein’s thoughts are useful and applicable in day-to-day management of organizations. To begin with, according to Derrida, organizations should invest in studying the familiar patterns of language used in the contemporary business setting. Derrida always believed in an underlying reality that individuals strive after the same. In most cases, the attempts at reaching the truth only yields results that are representative of truth. The effort, however, is still useful in acquiring language in its raw form. It is crucial to highlight that this concept of language as applied to organizations contrasts with the revolutionary perspective of Wittgenstein, which may necessitate the manipulation of language to achieve different purposes as along as the meaning is the recipients of a message infer the intended meaning. Derrida’s thoughts, as applied to the organizational setting, believes that such a setting has a natural and inherent form of language that helps it achieve results (Dick & Wolfreys 2013, p. 113). It is, therefore, unproductive to introduce new forms of language that contradict with the given conventions. Derrida’s thoughts serve the formal organizational setting, which is the most common. His philosophy on language supports the formal structures that equally demands the use of formal language. The word formal, in this sense, is critical in describing a formulaic pattern of conversation and communication in a business environment. Critics have notably criticized the formality in organization that suppress creativity and stifle individual weaknesses. Such critics argue that individuals are unique. Uniqueness is entirely tied to one’s experiences, which are rarely wholly similar to someone else’s experiences. For instance, an organization may possess individuals of different cultural upbringings. These individuals, therefore, have entirely different ways of perceiving things. Other elements that differentiate people include educational backgrounds, sex, and, gender. Using a unifying language, therefore, does not pay attention to people’s distinct ways of perceiving things (Blair 2006, p. 58). In reality, however, achieving a different path is not easy. It is crucial to note that although people use the word organization and management to refer to a known thing, these are abstract terms that do not refer to anything in particular. The management simply includes people in the administrative position. Since the managers are people with similarly unique experiences and identities, it is difficult for them to apply different languages to all the employees in an organization. The formation of a formal and formulaic language helps instill efficiency in the organization. Managers should enforce a strict communication model that ensures everybody in the organization understand each other. An individual employee, therefore, sacrifices the convenience of using one’s traditional language in order to gain an understanding of the intricacies of an organization (Stapleton 2008, p. 223). Forming a unifying language recognizes that each employee has an entitlement to understand strategies, operations, and the direction of an organization. Such an entitlement involves a greater sacrifice of learning a new language that has a different code of interpretation. A formal language avoids and tackles the problem of relativism that inspires different interpretations to a single message (Rasche 2008, p. 89). An organization achieves efficiency through quick decision making. Quick decision making, however, only occur if the parties to a management easily understand each other. This is because time is an expensive commodity. In case of no determined code of interpreting messages in an organization, individuals may apply their subjective experiences in inferring communication. A code of interpretation helps guide employees in communication until the individuals transfer the codes into the subconscious. Over time, communication in an organization becomes easy as every stakeholder naturally masters the organizational code of interpreting messages. In addition, words are applied to given meanings that may only a shift when it is necessary. A unifying language helps give the management and the employees a single identity. Derrida argues that language defines the world of the individual as a person absorbs the given identity entailed in a particular language. Both Derrida and Wittgenstein despise the idea of individual conception of the language. They both believe that an individual cannot participate in developing one’s own form of communication. Language is a societal thing, which loses its meaning when an individual modifies the same to fit the self. A language is a mode of interaction that involves more than one person. In this view, a manager should expect a higher duty from the employee. An employee does not exist independent of other stakeholders and activities that go in the organization. This is because the organization is a form of society, which possesses unifying goals. Although such individuals may be different, they adopt a single identity that the language of the organization necessitates. Managers, therefore, should perform higher task of helping individual employees understand the code of communication in an organization. This ensures no employee is not alienated from the activities and operations of an organization. This philosophy is a practice in law as a means of covering loopholes that leads to misinterpretation of messages. It also necessitates a linear understanding of organizational strategies. This, hence, should not be perceived as a means of stifling the individualities and creativity of individual employees. For instance, all employees should learn a standard code of etiquette such that it minimizes conflicts among people. This argument, however, may ignore the inalienable cultural identities of people that they adopt when they are in the family setting. In turn, usage of certain words in particular ways may ignite bad feelings in others when they are interpreted as discriminatory. The management, therefore, has to take care of such details in developing the etiquette code of communication. This, especially, ensures that minority employees achieve a fruitful working environment. In contemporary organizations, the minority issues arouses critical debates. This is observable in the case of immigrants who have to learn the language of the host in order to acquire economic opportunities. Although critiques normally address the issue of immigrants in business organizations from the immigrants’ end, it is essential to pay attention to the benefits that immigrants incur from developing the host’s language. A consumer in a country is used to the convenience of using a particular language between oneself and a seller. It is not easy for the consumer to trade such convenience by communicating in a different language other than the common one. On the other hand, an immigrant who is pursuing a better economic life in a new country has the responsibility of learning the host’s language in order to achieve one’s desired ends. The host possesses the majority culture that an immigrant must attach to the same. This explains why Derrida highlights the fluid of concept of identity that changes as a person changes main language of use. A person has to lend oneself to the identity that a language of use entails. Although critiques have been harsh on host countries for discrimination on minority groups as pertains to their welfare in organizations and the business environment, they fail to notice the complexity of the hosts giving up their language for the immigrants’ language. Wittgenstein proposes this ideal by arguing that meaning is purely a contextual idea. This is a great lesson to organization that have embraced globalization thereby setting up branches in different countries. Once a company sets its organization in a new setting, it becomes a cosmopolitan property. This means that it should strive to dissociate itself with the familiar mode of language. The given usage of words is critical in bringing out different meanings in particular situations. For instance, countries such China have different code of language that is different from that of the UK. Words, therefore, are attached to entirely different meanings than they appear. For instance, the Chinese culture appreciates modesty. In this sense, even anger may be packaged in words that otherwise express politeness. A manager, therefore, has a duty not just to learn the words in a new language but also to learn the underlying means in which the words are attached (Woermann 2012, p. 78). An organization in a new country has the huge responsibility of studying meaning such that it eases decision making and minimizes conflicts between the employees of the host country and the employees of the original country. The Chinese, for instance, may appreciate the aspect of using longer statements to give meanings to simple ideas. This is unlike the Western concept of language that may prioritize brevity. Wittgenstein believes that individuals possess limited knowledge of the environment (Smallwood 2004, p. 123). In turn, the idea of assumption significantly constrains meaningful communication. Derrida and Wittgenstein have different concepts of language that both converge and diverge at given points. Both philosophers endorse the contextual perception of language, but define this concept in diverging ways. Derrida views language from its end while Wittgenstein perceives language from the meaning end. Derrida argues that an individual’s identity emanates from the language that one uses. On the other hand, though not directly conflicting, Wittgenstein constructs language as arising out of inherent meanings. Meaning, therefore, exists before words exists. Both viewpoints are helpful to business students and managers. Derrida proposes a view that advises organizations to form and follow a conventional language that defines the identity of both the organization and that of the employees. In this sense, the organization harnesses a linear code of interpreting messages thereby easing decision making and minimizing conflicts among employees. Wittgenstein proposes a perception of language that may help businesses, which operate across borders, to understand the particular languages of host countries in order to harmonize understanding. Bibliography Blair, D. C., 2006. Wittgenstein, language, and information: back to the rough ground, Dordrecht: Springer. Cooren, F., 2014. Language and communication at work: discourse, narrativity, and organizing, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Derrida, J., 1998. Monolingualism of the other; or, the prosthesis of origin, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Dick, M.-D., & Wolfreys, J., 2013. The Derrida wordbook, Edinburgh: Edinburgh university press. Muhr, S. L., Sorensen, B. M., & Vallentin, S., 2010. Ethics and organizational practice: questioning the moral foundations of management, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub. Rasche, A., 2008. The paradoxical foundation of strategic management, Heidelberg: Physica-Verl. Smallwood, P., 2004. Critical pasts: writing criticism, writing history, Lewisburg: Bucknell Univ. Press. Stapleton, R. J., 2008. Business voyages: mental maps, scripts, schemata, and tools for discovering and co-constructing your own business worlds, Philadelphia: Xlibris. Wittgenstein, L., 1973. Philosophical investigations, New York: Pearson. Woermann, M.,2012. On the (im)possibility of business ethics: critical complexity, deconstruction, and implications for understanding the ethics of business, Berlin: Springer. Read More