By Katia Del Rivero

You’ve probably heard at least once Tom Andersen’s, the Norweigan psychiatrist, attributed quote ‘language is NOT innocent’. From my point of view, he had good intentions. He invited us to review our prejudices in conversations to reduce its impact.
Some people attribute the quote to Echevarría in ontologism’s frame. I believe the quote isn’t his but releases it through the hypothesis that states we are ‘linguistic beings’.
I think believing our language creates realities is interesting, and I want to invite you to make a reflection on a different premise: our reality construction creates and uses language with a purpose.
Two Important Distinctions
With the aim of inviting you to explore together this ‘crazy idea’, I would like us to share some frameworks.
Language: comes from the Latin lingua which refers to language and which origin was linked to verbal expression. Today this definition is considered limited. Now, when we speak of language we understand it as the ‘agreement to use a ser of signs (acoustic, visual, tactile, olfactory) for a context’. In other words, language is an agreed ‘form’ to simplify the possibility of sharing experiences, references, etc.
i.e instead of talking about four pieces of wood displayed to support the fifth piece of wood, parallel to the floor, and about a yard away from it, which is commonly used to place objects on top, eat or write. We’ve agreed to call it ‘table’.
This only happens in a social group where the accorded language is English, if you are in a group where the accorded language is Spanish you’ll call it ‘mesa’, and if you’re in a group which uses German then you’ll call it ‘tisch’.
Why do we do this? To survive. Is easier to shout ‘Fire!’, ‘Mammut!’, or ‘Tiger!’, than giving a large explanation like the one we used for the table. The spectrum of stimuli we human beings have is so broad, that we have developed ways to simplify the complexity of the world around us to survive.
One of this ways is language, which helps us simplify the reference we are talking about, and use our energy for something more productive than giving a description.
Innocent: comes also from Latin. It’s made from the prefix ins, and de world nocere which means to harm. So, when we talk about innocence, we talk about something or someone that won’t harm us. Instead, when we say something is NOT innocent, we mean it’s trying to harm us.
Is Language Innocent or Not?
So what we mean when we use the phrase ‘language is not innocent’ in its etymological sense is that people use language to harm us. Is it?
When we use it in the ontological sense, what we mean is: ‘we are as we generate realities through language’ (a literal phrase of ontology). That is, ‘human beings create themselves in language and through it’.
From the perspective of the Blumenstein Theory, the idea is different: we want to live, we use a form that helps us with this purpose and then we start over.
That is, we do use language with a purpose and that purpose is to survive. Language does not create us, we use language to create, what? better life chances.
In this way the language IS innocent, it is just a form, a simple tool, something simple that we use with the purpose of creating something with the other to increase our chances of survival, and as Michael Blumenstein said: “to live a good life”.
What Challenges Does this Perspective Represent?
The most important challenge:
“Remember myself capable for life”.
Why?
Because when the other uses a language with which I feel hurt or damaged; I need to remember that it is not the other that is harming me, it is me and the meaning I am giving to that language. The other just wants to survive.
Because when the other says something that ‘invites me to feel devalued’ I need to remember that this is what ‘I build’, it is not the other constructing himself through his language.
Because when I feel hurt or devalued, it is easier for me to make a construction of the other, instead of being responsible for my meaning. Which is very challenging.
Because instead of saying that the other is toxic (at least) and thinking that he wants to hurt me, I need to remember my aptitude for life (Michael called it enoughness) and my ability to build ‘a good life’.
So instead of allowing language to construct realities, I can build possibilities and use language for it:
What is your purpose? Is there something you need to feel good? What would you like to build when you use that form of language? What is your intention in using that language? Because the moment you do it, then the language will recover its ‘lost innocence’ and you will take responsibility for yourself and the joint construction to which you invite.
No comment yet, add your voice below!