Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis
 

The linguistic relativity hypothesis states that language shapes or determines thought. Does anyone think this theory helps to explain the warlike nature of humans, especially the Western cultures, and the proliferation of violence in American culture?

I like the idea that one's native language influences thought, but I don't see the connection to war. Nor do I see Western culture being anymore violent than Eastern. I don't know what violence you're talking about in America either (beyond what's present everywhere else).

When I say Western maybe I should really say english speaking. I say this because the tongue is derived from germanic origin, an origin which was steeped in continual and sometimes meaningless wars and violence.

I mean that America has a more violent approach to media to entertainment and to world relations than most of the rest of the world and I was looking for a possible explanation. Eastern cultures and forgive me if this is a generalization usually associate noble cause with war, whereas I dont think America or a lot of "Western powers" do...instead it is just war. It is almost a factual part of life, a necessity. I'm thinking maybe the heavy prevelance of wars in the germanic society and it's development of a language around that society maay contribute to our view of war and violence.

But I'm really asking what everyone else thinks, becasue as I'm sure it can be deduced by my above message I am having a hard time making any connections that may exist.

While English is primarily a Germanic language, it is also heavily influenced by French. In any case, I'm still having a hard time seeing how the Germans and English were so much more warlike than everyone else (except in the last century!). Taking into account everyone's abiity to wage war against their neighbors, the rest of Europe seems to have been just as interested in conquest throughout history. And China and Japan have rarely been at peace either. Maybe some examples would help.

I agree that eastern nations have historically looked on war a little differently than the west, but I think this is mainly due to a different senses of duty, individuality, and fear of death. I would argue that western soldiers actually go further to justify their wars by making up 'noble causes' than easterners generally do. More precisely, westerners tend to use concrete (if misguided) idealogical reasoning, while perhaps a simple sense of honor and duty is (was?) often enough in the east.

And I think America takes a more violent approach to world affairs because it can afford to. It's easy to threaten people when they can't reasonably threaten you back. Pretty much all superpowers throughout history have operated in the same way. The US is actually very benign in comparison I think. But then technology has quickly changed what's acceptable and what isn't.

Going back to the main topic, I doubt language is a major component of any culture's aggressive tendencies. I'd be more inclined to believe that connections exist to the various types of intellectual creativity. I'd be very interested in seeing any solid research that might exist though.

I don't think it's accurate at all to say that the West is warlike and the East is peaceful. Atilla the fucking Hun was "eastern". So was Pol Pot. So was every samurai you've ever heard of. People are warlike, it happens at an individual level and a cultural level.

Now, I'm FASCINATED by the notion that lanuage shapes thinking and behavior patterns. When I was fluent in French, many years ago, I noticed that when I was speaking French, things looked and seemed different to me. The relationships between objects was different. The way I thought of certain actions changed. It's clear to me that Francophones think differently about some things than Anglophones do, and that that's reflected very clearly in the two languages.

Now, you still have the chicken-and-egg problem to deal with. Did certain thinking arise culturally and get expressed in the evolution of that culture's mother tongue? Or did the language shape the thought patterns? Or does it even matter?

What a coincidence. We discussed the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in class just yesterday. The teacher was a bit under the weather though, so it was a crappy discussion. But we agreed that it wasn't a very strong theory. It's an interesting idea, but nobody seemed to think language actually shapes thought patterns and cultures to that extent. I don't think so. I think it's mostly the other way around, that language reflects the thought patterns of a culture. It may have a conservative effect though. If you control the language, you may very well control the thoughts of the people using it. It's a complicated package, language, culture, thought, all that.

But what is up with all the "noble savage" ideas? Jeez, it's sooo twentieth century. :rolleyes:

I think Sapir-Whorf is total bullshit. Language doesn't change how you think, only how you express yourself orally and graphically. Actual thoughts are created and shaped by the thousands of influences encountered every day, starting at birth (or sooner, some say).

If anything, I think the warlike part of our culture comes from the inherent warlike nature of animals. The wild is far from paradise and includes warlike brutality, torture, and murder.