Wednesday, May 6, 2009

The Problem of Words

How are we to describe a phenomenon from another culture, when the only suitable English word carries unavoidable connotations?

I have come across this problem in my study of Ancient Egyptian religion. In trying to express their conceptualisation of the body, I have repeatedly been frustrated by Western scholars' tendency to translate various Egyptian words into the English 'body', 'soul' or 'spirit'. In fact the Egyptians had a vast array of different words that each had slightly different emphases and none of them meld one-to-one with any of our English terms; ka, ba, akh, khat, khaibit, ib, sekhem, and many more, were all applied to describe a person or an identity in different contexts. None of them were solely physical and material ('body') and likewise none of them were solely transcendant, ethereal or eternal ('soul' or 'spirit'). The solution seems to be to leave them untranslated: but how can we then compare between cultures, if we are stuck in contextual languages? But then, why is English somehow superior as a language of comparison; what gives us the right to apply our terms to other cultures, pidgeonholing them into our conceptualisations of the world, just so we can study them?

The issue is that 'body' and 'soul' are intrinsically tied up in a massive history of Western Judaeo-Christian theology. The West is, historically, dualistic (although recently it has become very fashionable to reject dualism wholeheartedly and appeal to holistic or embodied views). The language that we speak has grown up amidst this dualistic culture, that is: body-human-mundane-material-temporary vs. soul-God-divine-ethereal-eternal. Our fleshy existence is tied to this dirty tangible world and we wait and yearn to be free of that, for our divine inner sparks to enter a non-physical existence for the rest of time. To use the word 'soul' immediately brings to mind (another problematic word) this particular view of the nature of humanity and its ultimate destiny; using 'body' is similarly constricting as the word refers solely to physical existence and excludes the intangible aspects of one's identity.

And so we are stuck in a quandary. To communicate our ideas with others we must use language, but the language we speak prescribes and limits the ideas we can express. And if we cannot express an idea verbally, then perhaps we cannot even think it in the first place: are not our thoughts articulated, even in our own heads, using our primary language of communication? There may be a nascent form of an idea which is pure and free from the strictures of syntax and morphology, but to express that idea, even to ourselves, to isolate it and have a look at it, requires articulation in the form of language; and as we have found, language constrains you. (See Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis).

Solution? Be aware of it. Know that the words you use are not God-given, pure representations of how the world is structured; they are human and cultural constructions with very specific histories and very specific definitions. It is not possible for us all to learn every language, every way of expressing every possible idea, but we can take some steps in that direction. Your ka, body, khat, soul and ib will be happier for it.

No comments:

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Australia License.