All Mixed Up: A Linguistic Kerfuffle

Language. Such a wonderful word to say, but not a wonderful word to understand.  Language is the root of all cultures and civilizations, and as difficult as it is to understand notions of nation it is even harder to understand the complexities that arise when two nations, or in this case languages, come into contact.  A change takes place that can never be undone.  When it comes to post-colonial societies language barriers have been taken down, reconstructed, appropriated, re-appropriated, and twisted beyond recognition.

This results in multiple difficulties and challenges that the post-colonial society must face when it comes to defining one's self in relation to one's language.  The linguist Johann Gottfried Herder once proposed the concept that "a particular language is the core of a particular Volk, a people or ethnic group, and to mix language is to lose one's core" (Doris Summer "Language, Culture, and Society" 5).  It can be inferred that what Herder meant was that language is connected directly to one's being, one's soul--a "soul" language if you will.

Therefore it comes as no surprise that the major argument, when it comes to understanding and resolving colonialism and its effect on the indigenous language, is whether the colonized should maintain a linguistic purity by rejecting change and all those that have been consumed by it, or accept the changes that have taken place by rebuilding a new post-colonial hybrid culture where both languages are embraced or even manipulated for the sake of authenticity.  WOW, what a mouthful!!!
As a p.c. scholar, this argument is one of great importance, and an argument that one must be comfortable facing.  Thus, a linguistic kerfuffle exist within the post-colonial world of studies, as well as the post-colonial societies of the world.  How does one go about understanding such a problem? Why choose purity over diversity, diversity over purity? For the sake of what and whom? Why bother which such a mindbogglingly confusing question?

Question: How does a p.c. scholar go about solving or understanding such a linguistic kerfuffle? 
Answer: Simply by understanding both sides of the argument.

Ngũgĩ Wa Thiong'o in his scholarly journal article The Language of African Literature provides his own specific answer to this intrinsic and monumental post-colonial argument.  Thiong'o takes the side of linguistic purity for the sake of creating true "African" literature.  Thiong'o's argument is that when colonization had taken place in Africa "English became more than a language, it was the language, and all others had to bow before it in deference" (149).  Here, Thiong'o describes the hierarchy that was created when Africans and Europeans first came into contact--a hierarchy of binaries.  Submission and appropriation.  Master language and indigenous language.  One language was therefore destined to become inferior, and in this case English became the master and all others became subservient.  This is important because Thiong'o also states that "Language, any language, has a dual character: it is both a means of communication and a carrier of culture..[and that it]..is [an] expression of a relation between human beings and it is specifically human" (151).   In order to establish control Europeans understood that they must infiltrate the very core of the indigenous people, so Thiong'o is simply showing the way his language was deconstructed and appropriated so that he and his people were forced to give themselves over to other forms of foreign communication. The colonized become less then human if language is so deeply connected to being human.  Thus "domination was the mental universe of the colonized, the control, through culture" (153).   Thiong'o best summarizes this act of control and its effect as "colonial alienation" and such control has "disastrous" consequences on the colonized (154-155).   Because of the deconstruction of their culture through language a division took place between fellow colonized--those who embraced English turned on their own indigenous culture and became what Thiong'o calls elitist "petty-bourgeoisie" (159).  Thiong'o's purpose for highlighting these negative consequences of colonization is the simple fact that the English language is, in his eyes, an oppressive force. To Thiong'o, the English language represents a hegemonic force that has usurped the African experience and the African aesthetic.   So it would seem that Thiong'o's answer to the pc linguistic kerfuffle is that the only way to free one's self  from colonial control is through one's soul language.  It would also seem that to Thiong'o that those who do write in the language of the colonizer are some how tainted, unable and unworthy to call their work true African literature.

Thiong'o champions linguistic purity, but let's take a look at the other side of the argument. Salman Rushdie in his scholarly journal article "'Commonwealth Literature' Does Not Exist" offers another answer to the pc linguistic kerfuffle. Rushdie thinks the type of anti-colonial sentiment that Thiong'o embraces is not necessary when it comes to the English language (64).  Instead Rushdie views the English language as progress or as a means to create progress.  Colonialism has taken place, and Rushdie makes the valid point that "English has become the world language" (64). There is no point in dwelling in the past.  As such there is also no point in rejecting it because "those peoples who were once colonized by the language are now rapidly remaking, domesticating it, becoming more and more relaxed about the way they use it--assisted by the English language's enormous flexibility and size, they are carving out large territories for themselves within its frontiers" (64).    Rushdie envisions a re-appropriation in which the colonized reverse the control that has taken place.  He sees the manipulation of the English language as a means to decolonize; the subservient become the masters and the masters become the subservient.  A reversal of roles.  The most important part of Rushdie's argument is linguistic hybridity.  Although he does not use the term hybridity Rushdie uses the word eclectic which is what he calls the "ability to take from the world what seems fitting and to leave the rest, has always been a hallmark of the Indian tradition, and today it is at the center of the best work being done both in the visual arts and in literature" (67). Beautiful prose!   However, he also notes that the "reality of the mixed [or eclectic  tradition is replaced by the fantasy of the purity" that some how the only way forward is through dwelling in the past mistakes of the colonizer(67).    Finally, commonality is what should unite all forms of English literature; just because a writer may not be from Britain or America does not mean that they should be considered "Commonwealth" writers, as he puts it "The English language ceased to be the sole possession of the English some time ago" (70).

Two extremely different answers to this linguistic kerfuffle, but only one truly provides a positive and inclusive  answer.  Rushdie argues that there should be harmony and that English is surely a possession had by all people of the world.   Thiong'o is correct in feeling the way he does about the English language because he sees the destruction of a truly unique culture, his culture by the hands of English.

But how can you truly show the colonizers what they have done if they are unable to understand you? Because as we all know to well, English has become, as Rushdie puts it the "comfortable" means of communication.  How can you reject and exclude those who are products of cultural contact? Linguistic contact hybrids.   Linguistic purity rejects those who are different through linguistic control, just as colonization did so many years ago.  Personally I agree with Rushdie, that English studies and literature should operate on the process of inclusion and not exclusion because at the basis of language is communication, as Thiongo puts it, language and communication are synonymous and are what make us human.  It doesn't matter what language one speaks, what matters is that we speak at all.