The Mind’s Big Bang

There has been a recent upsurge in studies focusing on how language influences perception and thought processes. (See ‘Humanity’ pgs. 62-63) The big question is how do languages represent and influence different social realities? [Watch Sapir Whorf Hypothesis video]

Many anthropologists would agree, including me, that “language users sort out and distinguish their experiences differently according to the categories provided by their languages. One culture could consider a tree an inanimate object. Another culture may consider it to be a living thing, just like a human. The grammar of each language would reflect this difference, and the idea of what a tree is to the two groups would be physically similar, but carry different connotations and emotional responses” (Amy Stafford, Minnesota State University). We could say, then, that diverse languages influence human perception of the world differently.



We know now that we are all biologically ‘programmed’ to learn language. If a child is exposed to other people talking around her, she will pick up the language, including its grammatical rules. If she hears language on a regular basis, she has no choice but to learn the language. As you saw in the film The Mind’s Big Bang, at about age seven, the biological window for learning language begins to close.


Different languages represent different ways of categorizing and finding meaning in the world. Anthropologist Franz boas was especially concerned with teaching his students to learn and understand a group’s language in order to be more scientifically accurate about culture.

The history of anthropological thought in North America - about linguistic and cultural relativity - originates primarily with Franz Boas, who is often called the father of American anthropology.

One biographer writes the following about Boas:

He earned his Ph.D. in geography in 1881, at Kiel. He planned and undertook a geographic expedition to the arctic (1883-84). Yet once there, he became fascinated the people, with their appearance, their language, and of course their way of life and traditions. After returning from his journey he decided to make anthropology his life work.

Although serious work was being done in anthropology at the time, the field was heavily peopled with untrained adventurers and armchair philosophers. Racial bias and bigotry was rampant, and the gathering of information was sometimes haphazard and riddled with an assortment of bias. It was common practice to use small scraps of information, or preconceived pet theories, to further prognosticate on the "nature of man." Grand sweeping theories were devised and only after was research done, for the purpose of proving or disproving.

What Boas brought to the field was the methodology of the natural sciences and the belief that one could formulate theories and conclusions only after thorough and rigorous collection and examination of hard evidence. With this approach, careful observation eventually yielded insights, which could themselves be tested for accuracy through restudy. Above all, he taught that theories should be treated as works in progress, until proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. The scientist, he believed, should always remain critical of his own work, alert to ways that sloppiness or bias might have skewed the results.

Because he was so grounded the natural sciences, Boas was aware that what differentiated the study of humankind from geography or zoology was the study of "culture." But culture to Boas was not simply another synonym for "civilization" (i.e. art, technology, and lofty ideas). And unlike many of his predecessors he did not see culture as predestined to some kind of linear progression, onward and upward, until it resulted in the equivalent of civilized European society. He also rejected the corollary prejudice that those who hadn't "arrived", or whose society differed from civilized European society, were simply inferior members of the human species.

In fact Boas rejected all such orthogenesis. Instead he stuck to Charles Darwin's own conception of evolution: that change occurred in response to current pressures and opportunities. And, that the path such change took varied in a multitude of ways. There was no one "right" way. When Darwin surveyed the Galapagos, he did not deem the one variation of a species superior to another simply because it was larger or its markings more elaborate. Rather, he saw them all simply as unique adaptations to their own particular circumstances. And this was precisely how Boas viewed various societies. Each was a unique adaptation to a unique and particular set of circumstances. When Boas applied this to anthropology he introduced the principle of "cultural relativism". The idea that each culture was the product of a unique and particular history, and not merely generated by race and environment, was another important contribution by Boas.

He further helped develop the basic methodology that underlies modern anthropological research. Boas felt that one could only begin to understand a culture by taking on a complete survey of its mythology and tribal lore, religion, social taboos, marriage customs, physical appearance, diet, handicrafts, means of obtaining food, and so on. As the burden of the task of studying culture grew, and other parts of anthropology became also more complex and embellished, anthropology became divided into a four-fold profession: human evolution, archaeology, language, and culture. The new standards as applied to cultural anthropology required that ethnographers go on location, learn the language, and undertake an intense survey that catalogued all the elements mentioned above as well as whatever other unique feature that were apparent. Above all, anthropologists must follow rigorous scientific standards and put truth and ethical behavior first.


Through experiencing other cultures himself, through extensive participant observation fieldwork, Boas was able to realize that different ways of living are not indications that some groups are civilized and other groups are primitive. Each group has its own logic and ways of surviving, and each group has its own language forms that make sense and evolve from living in the particular kinds of circumstances, histories and environments connected with the group. He said, “If we were to select the most intelligent, imaginative, energetic, and emotionally stable third of mankind, all races would be present."
He taught some of the most prominent anthropologists of the 20^th century and expected them to learn the language of the groups they were working with, do participant observation fieldwork, and use scientific tools, rather than speculation and prejudice, to describe culture.
Primarily, he insisted that in order to understand people, you need to learn their language, since it is through language that people categorize and find order in their world.





At the time of Boas’s work, other social scientists were working to separate people into categories that they called races and to prove that some ‘races’ were superior to others. Some of these scientists claimed that people of one race were born to learn the language of their group and not other languages and that some languages (namely European languages) were superior to others. For them, different languages reflected different biology.
In fact, many so-called ‘primitive’ languages are actually more complex in syntax and categorization than European languages. Boas, because he took the time to learn people’s languages and to insist that his students do the same, could refute claims that the complexity of European languages proves that Europeans are more sophisticated and superior than other groups.

One of Boas’s students was Edward Sapir, who was a key thinker in language and culture, or linguistic anthropology. After studying several North American Indian languages, he concluded that language has a huge influence on people’s understanding of their world.

One of Sapir’s examples concerns concepts for ‘wealth’. What do people in ‘mainstream’ U.S. culture think about when they hear the word wealth?

• 
  accumulation of property and money
  
• 
  prestige for individuals and families who are wealthy
  
• 
  the more wealth one has accumulated, the more power that person wields
  
• 
  other?
  

For many Northwest Coast Native Americans, words associated with wealth in their languages, did not conger up the same expectations or associations as the English word for wealth. For Northwest Coast groups, wealth was not categorically associated with long-term accumulation for individuals. Instead, power and prestige came from giving wealth away rather than keeping it. Wealth was about collective and group prestige and power rather than individual power. People as part of a clan group accumulated food, clothing, tools, copper, in order to give it away in potlatches or other gatherings. The more that the group gave away, the more prestige they gained. If one group’s salmon stream did poorly one year and another group had plenty, then the group with extra could gain prestige by giving it to the group in need. This ensured that everyone ate.

So the beliefs, symbols, meanings, etc. connected with signifiers associated with ‘wealth’ are not the same in one language compared with another. This is an example of linguistic relativity.
Edward Sapir’ and his student Benjamin Whorf worked on identifying, describing, and considering linguistic differences. Their conclusions were summarized in what has come to be known as the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis.



Sapir and others are not likely to agree with the idea that language determines thought. Rather, most linguistic anthropologists are more likely to say that language strongly influences thought. Very few anthropologists would say that anything determines what humans think. Rather, humans are creative beings who make choices.
The difficulty with linguistic relativity or the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis is trying to prove that language influences thought.

See linguistic relativity lecture 2.2b