By
Obododimma
Oha
I am a
Christian (or so I believe), but I find it difficult to reconcile some Christian explanations
about language (its origin, God’s role in its diversity) and my professional
convictions about this system of human signification. I am convinced that this
is only part of the dilemma of many who have to go to church but have to face
their books. Gender politics, for instance. Is it in our configuration of the
Maker in human signification systems as “male” or in sundry expressions of
afterlife, as if we have been there? OK, let us masculinize the Maker, so that
He can really be in charge and be seen to be in charge as male. But what does
He (sorry “it”) need a male sexual organ for? Does it (as “He”), as a spirit, have a wife or girlfriend? Does the God-He need to
reproduce as humans do or derive pleasure from corporeality as humans do? I
know you are just scratching your head or waving off this discourse that is
above your head! But it shows how, as humans, we have shown great courage to
recreate the Maker in our own image, using human signifying system! Imagine the pot trying to represent the potter!
Some colleagues in academia even write fiery
articles about how men are mistreating women and vibrate about this ferociously
at conferences. You dare not engage them or encounter them, if you don’t want
to ruin your conference participation. But these same people can become mere
sheep in their prayer houses and can even afford to stick to a little
superstition and give testimonies about how they have wrestled triumphantly
with the devil that wants to mislead them. They may even be pastors in one
church or another. You see; the problem of believing one thing here and
believing another there – living two diametrically opposed lives -- is a big
issue in recent times! When one agonizes about the reconciliation of Biblical explanations
about language and professional convictions, one is only talking of a part of a
whole problem. But it is unavoidable that we examine the CONTRA-dictions, to
understand how religion has complicated our problems as professionals.
It is
unavoidable that we talk about the origin of names of things, God’s role in the
diversity of languages, and the issues of gendering the Maker in English
versions of the Holy Bible (my subsequent references to New International
Version of the Holy Bible).
First, how
things got names. Adam, our first parent and early Humpty Dumpty, was said to
have named things just anything, and the labels he chose stuck. This reminds
one about the linguistic debate about the conventionality of words and
arbitrariness. Genesis 2:19 & 20 captures it clearly:
"Now the Lord
God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the
sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever
the man called each living creature , that was its name. So, the man gave names
to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals."
Funny, isn’t
it? First, so, all the things that God was creating did not have names? God was
just creating what he did not know. And imagine the contradiction in the
mention of the rivers by their names earlier in verses 10 to 14. So, the
rivers, their location identifiable and well mapped, did not have names? God
also brought all to the first man for him to label them! Only God knows how
cumbersome, and, in fact, impossible, it would be to bring all these things to
the first man to name them. Maybe the translation was wrong somewhere! Maybe
the original was not about X bringing A, B, and C to Y.
If this
account is not upsetting to a mind given to linguistic explanations about language,
may be the Babel story in Genesis 11: 1-9 is.
"Now the whole
world had one language and a common speech. As people moved eastward, they
found a place in Shinar and settled there.
They said to
each other, ‘Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.’ They used brick
instead of stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, ‘Come, let us build
ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make
a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole
earth.’
But the
Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord
said, ‘If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this,
then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down
and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.’
So the Lord
scattered them from there over all the earthh, and they stopped building the
city. That is why it was called Babel – because the Lord confused the language
of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the
whole earth."
In the first
place, it is important to note that “Babel” is another name for “Babylon” and
we know that kingdom did not have a good reputation before Yahweh. Further,
imagine God’s reason for “confusing” the builders and succeeding in stopping
the project, according to the narrative. He was obviously jealous of His own technological innovation. He
had built an intelligent robot who could live independently and build a city
reaching the heavens. God ought to be happy about this. But, NO, he was rather
jealous of their genius and felt that, with difference in language, there would
be misunderstandings and the project would be halted! How can a rational and
humane God do this?
So, He is the
author of linguistic diversity, out of His meanness and envy! Maybe this
narrative would have other meanings in science fiction. Maybe the people of
Babel were even building a space station, an International Space Station, with a desire to unmask the mysteries
out there, or as we know, this is an indication that language (understanding
and cooperation) is vital in the probing of deep space. It is important to rise
above the desire for a common international language in the project. Remember the record that NASA sent into space some decades ago, hoping some aliens out there would find it and possibly decode the images of the naked male and female, as well as the scientific symbols! Furthermore, one Black Hole is a common world language but it is only the beginning!
This account
of the origin of linguistic diversity is obviously laughable in the linguistics
classroom. If I, as a language teacher, provide this as a valid explanation,
the students would be wondering whether I am looking for my certificate in my back-door country or
whether my certificate is my “safiticate” in another signifying analogue world. Do you see my problem? These
religious explanations look infantile. They even indict and incriminate God.
But the problem is this: if I accept them as being literally factual, how do I
reconcile them with linguistic explanations that languages change over time
and space? Or that individuals have other important reasons for migrating and
their languages changing with time! It is not tidy to believe one thing in
church because one does not want to go to hell and to believe another different
thing in the language classroom. One must wait for cloning of persons to become
universal and authorized. Otherwise, one is merely moaning at the feet of
genetic engineering.
One thing is
clear: human beings want to humanise God,
want to give God human attributes so
as to explain away things they do not quite understand. They want to look at
the Maker through human semiosis and re-create Him and their own image. Since
God created everything, He must be held responsible for things being as they
are. Is that not a sound logic? He should have known, as the ominscient Maker,
that those social robots would try to build a city or a tower to reach the
heavens.
Obviously,
this is a major point in the CONTRA-diction: one is both a thinker and teacher
and a naive and faithful follower. How can one serving both masters please God?
One would please one to displease the other. For without faith, it is
impossible to please God. And what is faith but an assurance of things hoped
for, the conviction of things not seen?
Comments