" The sin of Babel was its quest for unity -- one interpretation, one reading, one people -- which was an abandonment of creational diversity and plurality in favor of exclusion and violence; and the "ravages of hatred have an ominous sameness." Plurality in interpretation is not the original sin; it is, on the contrary, the original goodness of creation: a creation where many flowers bloom and many voices are heard, where God is praised by a multitude from "every tribe and language and people and nation.'" - James K.A. Smith
Let's move this stuff out of literary theory/philosophy and into sociolinguistics and everyday communication. Let's replace the complaint tradition ("you can't end a sentence with a preposition!") with an ethical framework for reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Not Standard English but Standing by Words.
I'm not saying it's a theory of (sociolinguistic) everything, but I'm saying that, as James Alison says, "something claiming to be truthful but not being charitable is not really true. Just as something claiming to be loving, but not being based on what is true is not really love." Why not sociolinguistics, why not language use, why not language attitudes/ideologies "governed by the law of love?" (As my friend Saeed says, "love is a Christian concept," so I'm sorry if this leaves other people behind, but I think there is probably a way to bridge the gap.)
"...this approach insists on viewing language differences and fluidities as resources to be preserved, developed, and utilized. Rather than respond to language differences only in terms of rights, it sees them as resources." - Horner et al
Or rights and resources, no?
No comments:
Post a Comment