We bring this to you with acknowledgement to the party he joined in 1977, in the interests of a wider readership and appreciation.

–Editors

At the very outset, let me express my deep sense of gratitude to the organisers for inviting me to this World Classical Tamil Conference. This conference stands out in history because it is the first conference being held after Tamil was conferred the status of ‘classical language’. We feel especially proud because this status was conferred during the period of the first UPA government, when the Left parties were supporting it along with some other parties like the DMK.

I am happy to be here on a personal note too. Though born in a Telugu family, I can claim a share of Tamilnadu – I was born in the then Madras or today’s Chennai or what we used to call as Chennapatnam. And of course, we share many common traits in terms of language and culture. “Yathum Oore, Yavarum Kelir” ‘Every place (in the world) is my home town; Everyone is my kin’

There is an interesting episode in the BBC series The Story of India, which talks about the earliest human migrations from Africa. Thanks to the development of science and technology and the Human Genome Project, it was found that the gene M130 which was found in the remains of the earliest human migrants from Africa was found among the Kallar people in the Western ghats of Tamilnadu. Professor A. Pitchappan of the Madurai University, who had stumbled upon this discovery states that these people might have provided the “basis for the genetic inheritance of the rest of us. In other words, the world was populated from here: If Adam came from Africa, Eve came from India. So it is truly Mother India, indeed”. We should be rightfully proud of today’s Tamilnadu, for being the place where this process started from.

It is this long history that we are celebrating today, noting that the evolution of language is intricately linked with the evolution of the society.

Karl Marx had called language as “the immediate actuality of thought”. Tracing the origin of language in the German Ideology he states, “Language is as old as consciousness, language is practical  consciousness that exists also for other men, and for that reason alone it really exists for me personally as well; language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men”.

Explaining the evolution of language over the years, in his ‘Marxism and Problems of Linguistics’ Stalin writes, “Language is one of those social phenomena which operate throughout the existence of a society. It arises and develops with the rise and development of a society. It dies when the society dies. Apart from  society there is no language. Accordingly, language and its laws of development can be understood only if studied in inseparable connection with the history of society, with the history of the people to whom the language under study belongs, and who are its creators and repositories.

“Language is a medium, an instrument with the help of which people communicate with one another, exchange thoughts and understand each other. Being directly connected with thinking, language registers and fixes in words, and in words combined into sentences, the results of the process of thinking and achievements of man’s cognitive activity, and thus makes possible the exchange of thoughts in human society.

“Language has been created precisely in order to serve society as        a whole, as a means of intercourse between people, in order to be     common to the members of society and constitute the single language of society, serving members of society equally, irrespective of their class status. A language has only to depart from this position of being a language common to the whole people, it has only to give preference and support to some, one social group to the detriment of other social groups of the society, and it loses its virtue, ceases to be a means of intercourse between the people of the society, and becomes the jargon of some social group, degenerates and is doomed to disappear”.

The very fact that the Tamil language continues to develop and thrive, unlike other classical languages in the world like Latin, is because of the fact that it had maintained its liveliness by being constantly      among the people and common to the entire people.

II

The logo of this conference depicts Thiruvalluvar’s statue in Kanyakumari, lashed by tsunami waves and encircled by seven icons from the Indus Valley Civilisation. The depiction of the icons of the Indus valley civilisation in the logo deserves a mention. It brings  out the continuity and coalescence between the various cultures and the common thread that runs through them. A research paper submitted in one of these earlier conferences by Dr Iravatham Mahadevan an archaeologist of repute, pointing out that Indus valley inscriptions may belong to Dravidian culture, in fact, tries to establish the link between the people of the Indus valley with those who had inhabited these lands. The work of Dr Asko Parpola,  Deciphering the Indus Script, winner of the ‘Kalaignar M. Karunanidhi Classical Tamil Award’ also gains its importance from the fact that he had suggested Dravidian, close to old Tamil, as the language of the Indus script.

And, of course, the motto of the conference inscribed on the logo “pirapokkum ella uyirkkum, All living humans are one in circumstances of birth portrays this universalism. Its relevance today, as Thiru Karunanidhi explains, lies in its emphasis on the “ideal of humankind, that it should always be free of narrow walls of race, creed, and caste”. This is one important lesson that the history of our country, particularly this region teaches us.

The element of commonality in the languages and the harmonious  manner in which they have blossomed into what they are today, leaving along the way a rich legacy of culture, in itself constitutes   an interesting study. To better understand this phenomenon, let us take a brief example of the three south Indian languages Tamil, Telugu and Kannada. Befittingly, while Tamil was awarded the status of classical language in 2005, Telugu and Kannada were conferred similar status in 2008.

As a generation, we grew waking  up early in the morning everyday to the smell of brewing coffee and listening to M.S. Subbalakshmi on the radio. The trimurthi of Carnatic music – Thyagaraja, Shyama Sastry and Muthuswami Dikshitar – all composed their music in Telugu, though having different mother tongues. Yet, the music is called ‘Carnatic’. The harmony of our diversity is such that Telugu compositions can be effortlessly rendered in Tamil – or in Kannada. This is the beauty of    the universalism, that our tradition teaches us. Instead of recognising this simple truth, there were ugly expressions of chauvinism when M.S. Subbalakshmi was once sought to be   prevented from performing at the annual Thyagaraja festivities, Thanjavur, simply because she used to sing in Tamil.

Language, which historically acted as a binding agent for the people, was sought to be used, against its basic characteristic, as a vehicle to promote chauvinism and divisions. These attempts need to be resisted by promoting the universal values that we learn from history.

III

We communists, look at language as a unifying force in the struggle and development of society. We look at it as one among the four necessary conditions, not the only condition, that   defines a nationality. It is based on this understanding that from the days of the freedom struggle, the Communist Party fought for the formation of linguistic states – Vishalandhra for Telugu speaking people, Aikya Kerala for those speaking Malayalam and Samyukta Maharashtra for the Marathi speakers. Similarly in     Tamilnadu, communists played a prominent role in championing the cause of Tamil. Here it is apt to remember martyr Sankralingam, who died observing fast unto death for 64 days, to have the name Madras Presidency changed to Tamilnadu. He expressed his desire that his body be handed over to the communist party. P. Ramamurthy, a veteran freedom fighter and trade union leader from this part of the state, P. Jeevanandham and N. Sankaraiah declared that they would speak in Tamil in the state legislature and did speak in Tamil. A. Nallasivam, while he was an MP fought for the usage of Tamil in telegrams. Indeed they were pioneers in the struggle to get due recognition for Tamil. They believed that democracy does not have any meaning if, at least, the administration of the state is not carried out in the language of the common people. As Saint Thiruvalluvar says in his Thirukural,

Katchik keliyan kadunchollan allanel Meekkurram mannan nilam

The whole world will exalt the country of the king who is easy of access, and who is

free from harsh language”.                                 (39:386)

For a democracy to be successful, accessibility to the administration constitutes one of the important aspects. Language is one of the many aspects that not only connects both the ruler and the ruled but also defines the level of accessibility of the ruler/ruling class. Language plays an important part in the society by the means of exchange of thoughts “both in the sphere of politics and in the sphere of culture, both in social life and in everyday life”.

It is in this context that the government of the day has got an important role to play. Without falling into the pit-hole trap of the  Nehruvian model of imposing a three language formula, it should ensure that the language of the land prevails. This of course in no way should be construed as an advocacy for narrow minded linguistic chauvinism. All languages must be treated equally and allowed to thrive equally.

In today’s world no person can be bound by a single identity. The frontiers of discussion on multiple identities is extended by including the conterminous use of various languages by Indians. The extension of this understanding to include languages is important in the context of it often becoming a bone of chauvinistic contention. It is shown that in much of recorded history and in today’s realities, we, in India, live using, at least, three languages simultaneously – the mother tongue, the language at work, and the language of creative expressions. This explains our earlier example of Carnatic music. It thus becomes the bounden duty of the government to nurse this interpenetration of various identities, of course without belittling the importance of the ‘given’ identity.

Here I am, born in Tamilnadu, mother tongue Telugu, settled in Hindi-speaking Delhi, representing the people of West Bengal in the Parliament and addressing the august gathering here of Tamil speaking people from all over the world. This is India.

IV

Before I conclude, I would like to place some suggestions before the Conference for its consideration. Tamil has a rich tradition and   produced literature that is highly relevant even today. Apart from it, there are huge treasures of oral history that need to be immediately documented and preserved for eternity. Music, drama, folk arts are all repositories of such invaluable treasures. I hope the conference initiates some measures in this regard. Tamil society is also enriched by the various movements like the national movement, the self-respect movement, the Dravidian movement, the communist movement, the Dalit movement and the feminist movement. The rich treasures of literature each of these movements have left and the way they have influenced and helped in the evolution of Tamil and the society too needs to be thoroughly studied with a scientific perspective. Organisations like the Progressive Writers’ Association should not only be made part  of this conference but should also be associated with such a project.

The Thirukural says Perumai udayavar aatruvar aatrin Arumai udaya seyal

The man endowed with greatness true

Rare deeds in perfect wisdom will do. (98:975)

Let us, together, learn from the rich traditions of Tamil language in    order to create conditions for it to flourish and develop further.

 This speech, delivered at the World Classical Tamil Conference, Coimbatore, Tamailnadu, June 2010; the text has been published here (https://hindi.cpim.org/sitaram/06212010-tamil-conf-language.pdf) Sabrangindia is re-publishing it for wider readership.

Related:

When looks embody the soul: Sitaram Yechury

‘You left us a decade too soon, when India needed its body healed and soul rejuvenated’: a farewell to comrade Sitaram Yechury

A multi-religious, multi-cultural nation state like India must stay aloof from religion: Sitaram Yechury

Ban Private Armies of Gau Rakshaks by Govt Order, Central & State: Sitaram Yechury

The post Language as Unifying Force: Sitaram Yechury appeared first on SabrangIndia.

President Donald Trump has been denounced by the US House of Representatives for tweets attacking four Democratic Congresswomen of colour calling on them to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came”. The resolution, which passed by 240 to 187 votes on July 16, condemned the “racist comments that have legitimised fear and hatred of New Americans and people of colour”.

Congresswomen Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hit back at the president’s tweets. Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA

In response to Trump’s threat, the four Democratic Congresswomen, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib, who have come to be known as “the squad”, made clear that they would not be marginalised or silenced.

Trump responded to the House vote, by tweeting: “I don’t have a racist bone in my body.” But the House clearly felt otherwise.

The vote was historic, and constitutes the first time the House has voted to rebuke a president in more than 100 years. Mindful of the message that Trump’s statements send to American citizens and the global community, House representatives made clear that the US has no room for “racism, sexism, antisemitism, xenophobia and hate”.

Since his election, Trump has tapped into the latent and overtly racist feelings of some of his supporters, and legitimised their bigotry. Fringe groups such as neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and skinheads marked Trump’s victory in 2016 with a Nazi salute. No longer on the fringe, these groups saw Trump’s election as their coming out party.

Instead of unequivocally condemning these groups, he has pandered to them, leading to dangerous consequences. A recent study reported that every extremist murder in the US in 2018 had links to far-right ideology, making it one of the deadliest years in recent history.

While Trump sees no link between his behaviour and the rise of right-wing white nationalism, Democrats disagree. US Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi recently asserted that what Trump means by “making American great again” is to “make America white again”. Trump hit back by claiming that Pelosi was the racist.

Driving division

During the presidential campaign and during his time in office, Trump has thrived on making racist and xenophobic attacks against a diverse set of people, from Latinos to Muslims. But he has a longer history of racist discrimination against African Americans.

In 1973, he was sued by the Nixon administration, accused of violating the Fair Housing Act after officials alleged his real estate company was refusing to rent out properties to black tenants. The case was settled in 1975. In 1992, he had to pay a fine for removing black and female dealers of the tables in the Trump Plaza and Hotel Casino, when big rollers requested it. Trump also played an important role in spreading the “birther movement”, which accused president Barack Obama of not being born in the US.

Though the US has always been one of the more diverse countries in the world, whites have always been the majority. This will change by 2045, when whites are projected to comprise 49.7% of the population compared to 24.6% for Hispanics, 13.1% for blacks, 7.9% for Asians, and 3.8% for multiracial populations. These changes have driven fears by a subset of the white population that they will feel like foreigners in their own country.

According to a 2018 Pew Research Center survey, most Americans think that growing up in a racially and ethnically diverse US is a good thing, but this is divided along partisan lines. While 70% of Democrats believe that diversity makes the US a better place, only 47% of Republicans do. This means that Trump’s strategy of attacking immigration and diversity resonates with his supporters.

Studies show that people who exhibit high levels of racial animosity are more likely to support Trump. Other studies show that the way voters feel about sexism and the importance of tackling it also affected their probability of voting for Trump, much more so than how they felt about the economy.

Trump to the House: ‘I don’t have a racist bone in body.’ Oliver Contreras/EPA

Trump’s comfort zone

But the focus on the politics of race, ethnicity and religion distracts voters from Trump’s actual political policies, something he has had difficulty defending. In responding to Trump’s tweets, all four Democratic Congresswomen tried to bring the focus back to issues that they believe their supporters care about such as health care, gun violence and, in particular, detentions of migrants on the US border with Mexico.

Trump’s comfort zone is making personal attacks and engaging in identity politics, but he has frequently defended himself – arguing that because he has friends that are African American, Hispanic, Jewish or Muslim he is not a bigot or a racist.

As Trump sees it, he is just being politically incorrect. But such political incorrectness has become a signifier for covert or overt racist sentiments – and studies show it has led to an increase in racially charged violence and discrimination.

Trump’s racist tweets also have global ramifications. Violating human rights and dehumanising and degrading minority groups have become more acceptable in the US of 2019. In response to the controversy surrounding Trump’s tweets, world leaders have been silent and hesitant to criticise. But the House’s condemnation may be a turning point for how much bigotry the world is willing to tolerate from its leaders.

Courtesy: The Conversation

The post US House condemns Donald Trump’s racist tweets – why his language is so dangerous appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: Firstpost

Thereafter, some of us enunciated our discomfort at his evidently majoritarian and culturally dogmatic narrative that refuses to give the Miyahs—who settled in the riverine islands of the Brahmaputra in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—their natural right to practice, perform and live their unique culture on their own terms. To us, the hegemonic preachings of Dr. Gohain seemed to belie his established credentials as a prominent left-liberal intellectual who in the past has always stood up against Assamese chauvinism.

Yet, if one looks back at his recent intellectual repertoire, not beyond this decade itself, the creeping cultural majoritarianism in his socio-political imagination becomes conspicuous. In this regard, a debate that unfolded six years ago between Dr. Gohain and noted Assamese litterateur, Dr. Kamal Kumar Tanti, on the use of adivasi dialects and the question of land rights, makes his recent criticism of Miyah poetry look less surprising
.
The Adivasi language debate

On 13 May 2013, Dr. Tanti wrote an article titled “Asomor Adivasi Rajnitir Dik-nirnoy” (Determining the Trajectory of Adivasi Politics of Assam) in Asomiya Pratidin, a leading Assamese daily.  In the article, he emphasised on two key aspects of adivasi politics, which could turn it into a mass-movement.

First, he argued for the development of a land-rights movement for the tribal people in Assam under the leadership of tea-tribes, given that the latter is the most exploited class within the Assamese society. Dr. Tanti argued that parallel to all the democratic movements in Assam over land and resources, a united, democratic, anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist movement, which focuses on the interests of the exploited masses, should be developed.

Second, he wrote that languages and dialects spoken by the tea-tribe communities of Assam are facing the threat of extinction because of a lack of recognition from the government as well as the larger Assamese society. A similar threat is faced by tribal languages across India. According to him, parallel to Assamese language, measures need to be taken for the preservation, practice and study of tribal and tea-tribe languages and dialects, including a move towards institutionalisation and official recognition of these languages.

Dr. Tanti proposed four measures in this regard. He suggested that “along with Assamese and other tribal languages, Sadri language (the lingua-franca of Assam’s tea-tribe communities) should also be implemented as a medium of instruction in the schools in tea-garden areas and in areas with tribal concentration.” He also suggested that “dialects should be promoted by including them in the syllabus and curricula of lower and higher educational institutions in Assam.”

On 15 May, 2013, in response to this article, Dr. Hiren Gohain wrote an article titled “An Opinion on Tribal Politics”. Here, it is to be noted that Dr. Tanti’s article was published in two parts and the second part came out on the day Gohain’s response was published. In a sharply-worded rejoinder published on 29 July 2013, Dr. Tanti then expressed his surprise over the fact that Dr. Gohain’s response was published even before his article was fully published, suggesting that he might not have read the entire piece before responding.

Responding to the issue of exploitation of tea-garden labourers in Assam that Dr. Tanti had flagged, Dr. Gohain wrote: “No one can claim that the tea-garden labourers were the most dear ones of Assamese Hindu society.” His distinction between Assamese society and Assamese Hindu society is interesting, largely because Dr. Tanti did not make any such distinctions in his article.

Dr. Gohain further wrote: “However, it will be an obstruction of truth if it is said that the exploitation and insult received by tea-tribe communities is at the same level of structured discrimination and exploitation faced by the indigenous communities of Assam in the hands of castetist Assamese Hindu society.” Here, Gohain makes a critical distinction between the indigenous and the tea-tribe communities.

By doing so, he only perpetuates the cultural, social and political marginalisation of the tea-tribe community that was forcibly plucked out of their ancient lands by the British colonial government and sent to Assam as cheap work force at least a century before this piece was published. Dr. Gohain also crafts a certain type of hierarchical victimisation where he flags the indigenous communities as the “most exploited” and makes the adivasi an “other” to the indigenous.

On the question of language, Gohain stated that Sadri is a language that emerged outside of Assam and attempts are being made to use it as a lingua-franca among tea-tribes. Regarding the use of Sadri language in schools, he said that “in many places of upper Assam where tea gardens are located, the tea garden labourers can understand and speak Assamese language beautifully. Therefore, their children would not face any difficulty if Assamese is used as a medium of instruction.”

Besides the fact that such an “Assamese or nothing” position from the most revered intellectual of Assam reflects clear chauvinistic tendencies, Dr. Gohain’s point on the Sadri language also lacked historical authenticity. In his response, Dr. Tanti argues that the belief that Sadri language was imported from outside Assam is completely baseless, as shown in the findings of the doctoral research by Dr. Lucky Dey of Tezpur University. In her thesis, Dr. Dey had shown that Sadri is not a recent phenomenon; rather, it originally came with the labourers who were brought to Assam from the Chotanagpur Plateau of Central India by the British in the 19th century and thereafter, changed its form under the influence of Assamese and Bengali over the subsequent decades.

Adivasis and Miyahs on the same boat

Gohain’s belief that Sadri is an “imported” language is congruent to his recent argument that the Miyah dialects are “artificial”. What is also remarkably similar between Gohain’s critique of adivasi and Miyah linguistic assertions is the spontaneous reference to certain external entities with vested interests.

According to Gohain, linguistic assertions that are seemingly distinct from the mainstream Assamese socio-cultural fold—such as adivasi and Miyah—could empower these external forces and further their agenda of dividing the people of Assam. In case of Miyah poetry, Gohain gives the example of the BJP-RSS clique to make this argument, while in the adivasi case, he points fingers at the “central government” as the vested party aiming to divide Assam. Apparently, this should be reason enough for minority groups to shun their own language—an argument that is, at best, conspiratorial and at worst, shrewd.

It is also interesting how Gohain not-so-subtly distinguishes the adivasis and the Miyahs from the so-called Assamese mainstream in his writings. For instance, in his first response to Dr. Tanti’s piece, Gohain refers to the author as a “talented and prominent young member of Assam’s tea-tribe community”. Dr. Tanti, in his first rejoinder, flags this subtle demarcation as “tragic”, expressing remorse over the fact that Gohain could not accept him as an “Assamese” despite his educational and literary background in the Assamese language.

A similar tone suggestive of a “mainstream versus fringe” imagination is explicit in the manner in which Gohain talks about the Miyahs of Assam. Sample this excerpt from his recent piece, written in response to our article on his earlier criticism of Miyah poetry:

“Left undisturbed, they [the Miyahs] have lived in many places in peace and amity with the Assamese in the countryside. Some have gained recognition as poets, essayists and story writers.”

It is clear that Gohain firmly represents and stands for the Assamese-speaking social elite that constitutes the state’s power-holding middle class and sets the dominant political discourse (including on the NRC). This group, for him, represents the nucleus of Assamese society around which other smaller groups revolve and derive their legitimacy from, much like planets revolving around the sun, each frantically searching for glory in its bountiful brightness. Only if a planet maintains a sweet and safe distance from the glaring sun, can it thrive. Otherwise, it is doomed to perish.

Language as a life-world

Dr. Gohain’s refusal to accept this linguistic plurality and imposing Assamese is at the core of Assamese nationalism. His views mirror the sweet spots which light up the narrow and chauvinistic character of Assamese Nationalism and their promotion of Assamese language pushed through literary bodies such as Assam Sahitya Sabha and students’ unions such as the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU). Their denial ignores the gift of language and its potentials.  

Native or ordinary languages are not invented, unlike the constructed language of mathematics and physics. One is born into a linguistic world, to a family and society. Professor Mrinal Miri writes that language “lights up our world” by making us aware of its diversities and complexities. Ordinary languages are of a variety and takes different forms. Gestures, myths, emotions and poetry are all different kinds of languages that go beyond conversational language.

Professor Miri in his essay “One Language and Many Languages” notes that it is through language that one enters in the moral, ethical and emotional world of cultures. And having grown up in the Northeast or in any plural society, we grow up understanding and speaking many tongues. In each of the languages we come across, the moral, ethical and emotional worlds are different. Each of them has its share of “minute particularities, subtle unities, its surprises and magnificence.”

As we move ahead, languages, like technology, also undergo change. It gets webbed in intricate relationships and these new hues only enrich a language. There is something more important to language.  It enables us to “understand” that which is at the core of the idea of language, notes Prof. Miri, as opposed to “explanations” that a constructed language has to offer. He further notes that linguistic diversity is the essence of human diversity. It is the most “magical” fact of humanity and we ought to preserve and nurture the plurality of cultures with great care.

The use of mother-tongue in schools can make a lot of difference and there are multiple studies which show this fact. It is through a child’s mother tongue that one enters in to the “human world of a community”. It is through the mother tongue that one develops a sense of identity and belonging. If a child’s mother tongue is completely cut off there ought to be a sense of disconnect. It can be a battleground for the child to go to a school where they are speaking a different language. It impacts their will and confidence. This is one of the aspects that Kamal Kumar Tanti was trying to highlight in terms of adivasi students and texts used in the schools of Assam.

In other words, the knee-jerk reaction of Dr. Gohain and whoever refuses to give place to other languages are, in fact, refusing to participate in the moral, ethical and emotional life of the Miyah and adivasi community. It is at the same time eroding and denying the magical aspect of humanity—its multilingualism. It is also denying a cultural world for many. Their views are contrary to Bishnuprasad Rabha’s plural understanding of Assamese and its cultural debt that it owes to numerous languages and cultures. The “pulse of Assamese culture” lies in its plurality and sharing of the different cultural repertoire. It gets reflected in the celebration of this multilingualism and not in a linguistic despotism of Assamese.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post Language Games of Assam: The Mainstream vs the Margins appeared first on SabrangIndia.

You might think that the culture war over race and immigration primarily transpires in dramatic events, like the woman who climbed the Statue of Liberty to protest Trump’s child detention policy or the events in Charlottesville last summer.
 

The culture war isn’t just playing out on the streets. It’s also a struggle over the dominant understanding of certain words. AP Photo/John Minchillo

But it also exists in the banal and everyday ways that we communicate.

It involves battles over the dominant meaning of words, and how we use those words to describe our values and construct our policies. For example, on July 19, House Speaker Paul Ryan urged conservatives to engage in a rhetorical battle over what he called the “hijacking” of traditional conservative terms like “Western civilization” by the alt-right.

Ryan asked conservatives to notice that a key term that they take for granted as universally understood had recently become contested. In a 2009 speech Ryan explained that “Western civilization” was “rooted in reason and faith”; it was a tradition that “affirms the high dignity, rights, and obligations of the individual human person.” Now Ryan fears that it is being construed to mean “white identity politics,” which is more like “racism” and “nationalism.”

Because we’re so immersed in our own culture and social networks, these rhetorical battles can be easy to miss; you have to look at them from the outside, which is a tricky thing to do.

One way to take a peek inside a culture’s discourse is to examine what rhetorical scholars like me call a culture’s “enthymemes,” which we can think of as the ways that words, phrases and ideas are understood in a particular community.

Enthymemes serve as common ground

In the fourth century BCE, Aristotle coined the term “enthymeme” to explain how different words and arguments resonate in one community but not in others. Technically, an enthymeme is a “rhetorical syllogism” – an argument made with a premise that’s assumed or taken for granted, and so goes unsaid.

For example, when you hear someone say, “the states,” you know they’re referring to the United States of America. They don’t need to actually say it. More confusing is when people say “the city” because depending on where you are, “the city” could be San Francisco or Chicago. The difference between how we understand “the states” and “the city” is the difference between a commonly shared enthymeme and one that’s specific to a region.

If you want to persuade a group of people, then you need to understand what they understand, see the world the way that they do and use the words that they use to describe objects and ideas. Otherwise, you’ll just talk past them.

As Aristotle pointed out, what was persuasive in Athens might not be persuasive in Sparta. He thought that we could be most persuasive when we argue using commonly understood enthymemes and examples.
 

Decoding one American enthymeme: diversity

It can be difficult to see how enthymemes operate in a culture when you’re on the inside. It can help to look at how your culture is perceived by an outsider.

As part of my research for a book that I’m completing about the 2016 election, I’ve spent the past few months reading the message boards and websites of white nationalists, a group that exists on the fringes of American culture. It’s been fascinating to learn the white nationalists’ enthymemes and to see how they understand discourse about race.

I perused the now-banned white nationalist website Daily Stormer and read content like neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin’s article “A Normie’s Guide to the Alt-Right.”

I learned that white nationalists believe that racism is normal and that everyone else is a racist too. They are avowedly pro-white and believe that “diversity” is the dominant American culture’s code for a systematic program of promoting what they call “white genocide.” According to white nationalists, a conspiracy exists to exterminate white people “via mass immigration into white countries which was enabled by a corrosive liberal ideology of white self-hatred, and that the Jews are at the center of this agenda.”

With that basic understanding in mind, let’s turn to a seemingly innocuous July 4th tweet from former President Bill Clinton celebrating the nation’s diversity.

Many of the responses to Clinton’s tweet understood his comment as a celebration of fundamental American values. Americans might disagree about how much diversity is best, but it has been generally understood that America is a “melting pot” and that diversity has made the nation stronger.

But not everyone accepted Clinton’s enthymemes.

If you believe that there is a conspiracy in the dominant culture to exterminate white people through immigration, you would read Clinton’s greeting claiming that the result of “diversity” is “deeper strength” as a call to unite all non-white people in the conspiracy of white genocide. You would read Clinton’s celebration of “we the people” as “us versus them.”

For example, one respondent decoded Clinton’s tweet from the white nationalist perspective, noting that “diversity” is “anti-White, anti-America, anti-While [sic] male.”

Another respondent rejected Clinton’s enthymeme, arguing that calls for diversity are calls for the eradication of white people:

Imagine attempting to have a productive conversation about issues of race or diversity with someone who holds completely different enthymemes from you.

When one side understands “diversity” as America’s strength and another side understands “diversity” as a conspiracy to exterminate white people, there is little common ground to discuss policies such as building a border wall, affirmative action, or whether to abolish ICE.

Without shared enthymemes, problem solving is almost impossible.
 

Beyond white nationalism

While white nationalist beliefs and rhetoric represent an extreme version of how different groups understand “diversity,” it’s possible to see how the meaning of the word is contested in attacks on university diversity initiatives. To one group, diversity initiatives mean allowing unqualified people to get an easy pass. To another, it fulfills an educational ideal of bringing people of different backgrounds and circumstances together. These different understandings make it that much harder to have a real debate.

What comes to mind when you hear a word like ‘diversity’? AP Photo/Rick Bowmer

One way to describe this cultural moment is that we’re in the middle of a battle to control the nation’s culturally dominant enthymemes – the ways that we communicate our understanding of our nation and its ideals.

It’s productive for cultures and subcultures to have open disagreements about facts, words and values – otherwise, dominant ways of thinking about the world may become calcified and suffocate progress. Think about where we’d be today if no one had ever questioned the once dominant enthymeme of “citizen” that denied women or African-Americans the ability to vote.

Yet nations need to share enthymemes to function. Without a mutually shared understanding of facts, words and values, a culture cannot endure.

It’s possible that at this moment in history there is little that we all understand in the same way, with the same emotional intensity.

We see more rhetorical battles over the meanings of key terms during moments of transition and upheaval. The instability in our understanding of the meaning of “diversity” reflects the nation’s actual instability.
 

Jennifer Mercieca, Associate Professor of Communication, Texas A&M University
 

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post America is in the middle of a battle over the meaning of words like ‘diversity’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.