The Race Is Not a Biological Issue - Essay Example

? Language and race Introduction Race is not a biological issue. It is a much deeper phenomenon. It concerns cultural, religious, social beliefs, features and traditions. It is relevant to define what race is and what kind of determinants it has. Race in the modern discourse is a relevant issue and is often positioned as a social construct. When race is discussed from the perspective of humanities, such as philosophy, religion, history, communication etc often is not supported by different scientists. Further on we will make an attempt to define relations between language and race as a social construct. Interrelated Language and Race The ancient philosophers and famous linguists have underlined the importance of social interaction, social stereotypes, and language and not with the issues of evolution. A large number of modern theorists are basing their arguments on the ancient philosophers, such as Socrates, Hermogene (Boas, 1940). For example, linguists-structuralists and poststructuralists, the “conventionalists” who focus their attention on the relations between a signifier and signified are the representatives of a crucial role of language in interpretation of race as a social construct. The interpretation of language as an important factor of determination of a race as a social construct is usually conducted in the following terms: “if a word (or other signifier) does not flawlessly and directly communicate the concept it signifies – in other words, if there is not an inherent relationship between signifiers and their referents – at least a certain degree of social construction of meaning must take place between a communicator and his audience” (Grillo, 2004). This principle works with the interpretation of race as a social construct. In accordance with Vatz language does not have a function to reflect an “objective reality”. It creates a reality by organizing comprehensible perceptions taken from a complex, bewildering world (cited by Edgell, 2008). In other words, the scientists reject any “objective reality” as the main basis of strong social construction theory. In accordance with Jacques Derrida, Jean-Francois Lyotard and Richard Rorty (Montagu, 1951) there are different kinds of worlds in the minds of different thinkers. Thus, an individual’s linguistic experience is the basis for an individual’s unstable reality. The language in terms of this theory is positioned as a system of a variety of symbols. The concepts are communicated among different people in an incompatible manner. Social negotiation implies a fluid, comprehensive understanding among all parties involved in the process of communication. Therefore, it is rather hard to define relations between material reality and social interaction. Language as a social construct Language, as a race is also a social construct. “ Language is not a ‘brute fact’ per se, as cursing at a sub-Saharan African person in Spanish would mean nothing to him (speaking from personal experience of course)” (Grillo 2004, p. 935). This suggestion can be interpreted as if the language was not an objective entity. Still, for people there is a degree of objectivity in words used by people in their daily lives. If to compare language and race as social constructs, it is possible to trace a kind of interdependence between these two social phenomena. For race as a social construct, many followers assign political features and many other social factors. Race is inevitably connected with the state and makes a great contribution into the state’s identification and state contributes much to one’s identity (Grillo 2004, p. 936). A role of language in relation to race In case language is one of the determinant factors of race, it should be noted that “an utterance becomes a social construct when it enters the world of discourse, which it must do, of course, in order for us to communicate about it” (Edgell, 2008). Thus, language performs a function of social construction of race and provides comprehensive arguments of the reality for different representatives of race. This claim is relevant in terms of postmodern and poststructural discourse, when the important role is assigned to language as an essential factor influencing on social reality interpretation. In terms of language, it is easy to see how different lexical units are applied for representatives of different nations. There are no exact and correct definitions for African Americans or Hispanics. Very often these two races are described by means of language with a kind of mockery and there is an element of racial discrimination in such names, as “blacks”, “negroes” and so on. These negative connotations witness the fact that African American race has experienced numerous challenges during its existence and these prejudiced social attitudes are reflected in language. Moreover, the way English language has evolved among African Americans and European Americans reflects social, cultural, religious and other challenges experienced by these races. For example, Labov & Harris (1986) talked about “divergence” of white and black vernaculars, in spite of the fact people have their attitude to a process. When the Northern Cities Vowel Shift occurred, the majority of urban European Americans were influenced by it. With regards to this fact, we can claim that the process of socialization happens along color or “race” lines (Peabody, 2005). In accordance with the study conducted by Wolfram’s (2000) the African American youth from North Carolina (chosen as respondents) prefer identify them with urban African Americans. Still, concerning changes of language practices, there are many doubts with regards to the following questions: “have the reasons typically invoked to account for structural differences between white and black vernaculars been validated by other empirical considerations such as the socio-economic history of North America? Is it evident that language contact is more significant in the evolution of European languages among descendants of Africans than among people of European descent?” (Peabody, 2005, p. 864). As far as we can see, language role as a determinant factor of race as a social construct is often questioned. Taking into account the fact that language reflects social and economic changes experienced by race, it is not quite clear whether language is the main determinant factor of race or language is a descriptive and reflective factor of race. It is possible to protect a determinant role of race in language definition referring to the fact that language is more global phenomenon. There is no race without language. Further on, there is made an attempt to argue that once racial changes occurred and were reflected in language, race as a social construct would change or move to another social level. For example, let us suppose that such definition as “white people” would disappear from the consciousness of the humanity. Then, “white race”, which have existed as a mental and linguistic construct, might be challenged. To associate different races with colors is rather a problematic step. Colors in European languages, as a rule, refer to “abstract and qualitative attributes such as character, worth, morality, spirituality, superiority, and inferiority” (North, 1998, p. 15). The representatives of different races cannot be assessed only on the basis of their personal features (“black” color refers to something bad, depressing etc; “white” color refers to something good, pleasant etc., but these characteristics should not be applied for people as the only one relevant determinant factor). In order to describe such a complex phenomenon as “race”, such a global phenomenon as “language” is appropriate. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there is a need to define relations between these phenomena correctly. Language should be considered as another determinant factor of race, such as culture, territory, traditions and customs and other factors. Ty is not a decisive factor for sure. Still, the role of language as a universal descriptive and reflective tool of race cannot be underestimated. Therefore, it is possible to illustrate a descriptive and reflective function of language in relation to race. One of the sports headlines, which occurred in media, was the following: “Indians extend Boston’s massacre”. There was no intention of the author of the article to evoke social prejudices and stereotypes connected with American Indians. Nevertheless, this example illustrates that language has an immense power and every journalist, writer or communicator should clearly realize this fact and analyze his words in his mind before saying something. On the other hand, there is a need to avoid definitions of race “punctuated with descriptions that underscore ethnicity but describe nothing. It is mired in euphemisms and the tortured, convoluted syntax that betray America’s pathological avoidance of straight talk about race relations” (Woods, 2002). Conclusion As far as we can see, there is a strong relation between race and language. There is no need to ascribe to language primary functions in relation to race, but there is a need to take care of linguistic means applied in the process of description or communication with representatives of different races. Therefore, there are similarities between race as a social construct and language: both of them are social phenomena; they are global and cannot exist without each other. There is a certain degree of interdependency between race and language and it is necessary to keep this relation well-balanced. Works cited 1. Boas, F 1940, Race, Language and Culture. New York: Macmillan. 2. Edgell, H 2008, "The Language of Race." The Quill, April, p. 33. 3. Grillo, R 2004, "The Language, Ethnicity and Race Reader." Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 10:932+. 4. Montagu, A 1951, Statement on Race: An Extended Discussion in Plain Language of the Unesco Statement. New York: Schuman. 5. North, M 1998, Dialect of Modernism: Race, Language, and Twentieth-Century Literature. New York: Oxford University Press. 6. Peabody, N 2005, "Census and Identity: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity and Language in National Censuses." Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 11:863. 7. Woods, K 2002, The Language of Race. [online]. Retrieved October 7, 2011 (http://www.poynter.org/uncategorized/2094/the-language-of-race/). Read More