Thursday, October 18, 2012

The 'new' Tamil



Legitimized Linguistic Changes and Literature

The socio-cultural changes in our State of Tamil Nadu are reflected in the current literary language of the media used for the world of electronic entertainment forms. We can apply the social theory of Niklas Luhmann, a German Sociologist and a prominent thinker in the sociological systems theory to review the way society keeps changing itself, and interpret the contemporary discourses of radical change as a particular form of societal self-description that functions as a means of societal self-deception. Late-modern society uses the form of simulation in order to stabilize and reproduce at the same time the unsustainable status quo and a faith in the radical alternative.
Systems theory considers ‘everything’ as a ‘system.’ It considers society as a ‘self-referential system.’ According to this, social components establish relations within themselves and differentiate these relations from relations with their environment. In his book The Reality of the Mass media, Luhmann extends his theory of social systems – applied in his earlier works to economy, political system, art, religion, sciences, and law – to an examination of the role of mass media in the construction of social reality.  The changes brought into our society due to globalization today, and earlier by colonization can be understood from the theoretical position of Luhmann.
This paper analyses the globalised situation in the linguistic front in Tamil Nadu using the framework  of the essay by R.Radhakrishnan “Why Translate?” written in the Journal Of Contemporary Thought, where the writer takes on the Herculean task of portraying the Tamil reception of the colonial encounter in terms of  linguistics. Tamilians translate their thoughts into other Indian languages and English just like every other Indian becoming part of the great polemical linguistic of the sub-continent of the Bharatha Desam. Mixing codes and words have always been a characteristic feature of the Indian, though claims for the “purity” of languages are vehemently defended.
We can consider the mixing of codes as represented by the media in the current society as a self-referential programme of communication where the system is not decided by specific social interests or political directives; instead the mass media is regulated by the internal code that enables the system to select information from its own environment and communicates this information in accordance with its own reflexive criteria. Today’s mass media brings out the heterogeneous element in the social mode of communication.
Radhakrishnan says “Without a multilateral acknowledgement of the coevalness of the heterogeneity of human tongues and cultures, any act of meaning making remains captive to the master-slave or the anthropologist-native informant model.” [p.63] Languages could have been born at the same time, originating and existing during the same period. This valid linguistic statement raises the discussion of ‘location of culture’ to a position without a ‘location.’ The use of the word ‘translation’ assumes two cultures with two different locations in time and space. There is a ‘time’ in human experience when ‘two’ languages and become ‘one.’ Certain geopolitical factors do play a role in the permitted mixing of certain linguistic codes.
The current speakers in Tamil Nadu have accepted the interplay of Tamil-English and not Tamil-Hindi. Radhakrishnan delves into a detailed analysis about this intellectual representation of experiences only through selected codes. He compares the role of English in India with its role in Africa. The Tamil educated in English prefers English to Hindi for a political identity that could have been either natural or  fabricated. The African model of Post colonialism might not represent the Indian experience with the colonizers. Radhakrishnan says, “To a Tamilian, Tamil was the carrier of his/her culture, and not any other equally Indian languages. ...unlike in the examples quoted by Ngugi, the non-Tamil was both Self and the Other: Self by virtue of being a fellow Indian, and Other by virtue of being a non-Tamilian” [p.71].  
The Indian post colonialism describes the destabilizing social roles played by the birth of new codes and parameters. Luhmann describes the mass media as one of the key cognitive systems of modern society, by means of which society constructs the illusion of its own reality. It provides parameters for the stabilization of political reproduction of society, as it produces a continuous self-description of the world around which modern society can orient itself. Thus, communication becomes a technical code through which systematic operations arrange and perpetuate themselves. Colonialism gave new models of literary communication to Indian writers and they did try with significant models of western writing which we can refer to as technical codes.  These codes perpetuated into Tamil literary world too and they had to ‘arrange’ their styles under new systems and these systems merged bring forth new codes and styles.
The Tamil writers embraced the impact of ‘high modernism’ and after having a brief encounter with Western styles of writing, have come back to keep ‘alive’ the ‘local’ characteristics making the works available to the regional readers. The Tamil writers had the ‘tall’ responsibility of dealing with the “potentially universal status of Tamil language and literature” [p.65]. Leading Tamil writers like Pudumaipithan wanted to make Tamil as vehicular or modal to represent the living traditions rather than remain ontological or essential and thus become outdated. Tamil should have the ability to cultivate meanings and nuances. Tamil literature  accepted the ‘new’ form of ‘novel,’  especially its serialized form, in an easy manner like the other Indian languages, all while claiming for the language’s and literature’s uniqueness.   Radhakrishnan points out how Tamil was viewed by writers as a magnificent language on the way to becoming a vehicle to carry current thoughts and experiences   and they did not perceive the colonial linguistic transaction as something that happened from a totally ‘different linguistic universe’[p.66]. 
The mass media has become comfortable with the standardizing of the ‘mixture’ words that have been created by the current society. The film lyrics have legitimized the use of English and Tamil and these songs have taken Tamil lyrics to a global presence, quite new to the Tamil world of imagination. At the one side we have writers consciously borrowing from Western literary styles, and on the other side, ‘how to borrow’ is a leading question for Tamil writers with a world vision, though we may simply dismiss it as the ‘alien influence.’  Radhakrishnan points out that Tamil “can take on this burden, and continue to be itself.” [p.67]
Radhakrishnan views language as a system and opines that Tamil as a system will absorb various influences and continue its operation as a technical code of communication.  Language is ‘merely’ a code of communication that acquires additional nuances on its growth and expansion. In his book Art as a Social System, Luhmann says:
The discursive sequentiality of conscious operations is based on an immediate relationship to the world that is always retained and carried along, neither depending on nor allowing for the possibility of designating the world as a unity. This is true for perception in general and thus holds for the perception of artworks as well [p.8].
Human perception is not capable of viewing the world as a unity. When art uses words they end up having a ‘connotation’ and become limited by the utterance’s framework of time and space. What we write and how we read are all within this limited perception of human abilities.  Semantics and stylistics are part of conscious operations and they are discursive – though we say everything, or think we have said everything, there is lot more left unsaid or lot more over-expressed – a true post structural stand where we have understood the limitations of human utterances, as meanings cannot totally be operated by the sayer or writer of any text. New words in any language say something that really cannot be said in an already existing language. The new sensibilities are a force to be reckoned with.
Whether the semantic – syntactic parameters of Tamil can accommodate these ‘new sensibilities’ cannot become an issue for contention, as essentially Radhakrishnan argues style could even dictate content. Flop songs and soup songs  as  forms decide the content and even the diction and presentation. Literature has its internal possibilities and if the current film lyrics would be considered as an important genre of Tamil literature in the near future will only be decided by their longevity and their will to survive.  Can written Tamil literature tackle postmodernism or post structuralism or will this burden be carried by electronic entertainment system?  Self-critiquing a culture’s establishment by literature is a burden for Tamil writers, but it has been quite comfortable carried on by the electronic form of literature. Literature has become the voice of powerful agencies of various minorities and the question of aesthetics or the entertainment value has to be sacrificed in the effort to picturise the reality from a certain point.
Radhakrishnan studies the issues in translating a postmodern text into Tamil as ‘postmodernism does not translate well into Tamil’ and ‘postmodernism is not an experiential verity within Tamil’[p.68]. What is the political impact of post modern thought in Tamil? Is it because the postmodern experience is irrelevant and meaningless in the Tamil context?  The western experience of the World wars that resulted a serious questioning of its Establishment and belief systems probably does not relate to the Tamil mind.
All said and done, when we read post structural works deconstructing Indian epics, re-writing dominant male discourses into dominant female discourses, we are not really convinced. There is something that makes these works as not the product of our social milieu. That ‘something’ could be the ‘common’ viewpoint of the ‘common’ reader, and if a ‘literature’ cannot reflect its ‘people,’ then, it may not be able to carry the nomenclature of literature. ‘Isms’ of ‘content or ideologies’ from ‘other’ regions can probably inspire similar thought currents, but whether they will gain momentum, get a natural flavor and status depends on cultural ‘nearness’; Whereas, ‘isms’ of forms have managed to spread themselves and acquire new shapes and figures, like the ‘novel’ and the ‘free verse.’
Tamilians have a high sense of ‘pride’ in not imitating the ‘other.’  The Tamil sense of ‘purity’ and ‘classicism’ will never accept the flop song and soup song as standard forms of literature.  How will Tamil literary criticism explain these songs?  We can bring into argument Radhakrishnan’s discussion of  the work of Ngugi Wa Thiong’s   Decolonizing the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature  in this context.  The book looks at language from two levels: language as ontological worldview and language as pragmatic performance.  Ngugi sums up the dual role played by language – for communication and as a symbol of culture. Today’s lyric of the film uses English words treating them as the local language. I have come across many semi-literate and illiterate  people not knowing the difference between English and Tamil words. Many people think ‘ischool,’ ‘shop,’ doctor,’ ‘bus,’ and many other such words used in everyday life are indeed Tamil words. People do not worry too much about the ontological purposes of words; instead they use words as tools of communication. Lots and lots of English words have become actually Tamil words serving the purpose of communication and nothing more. The words can belong to any linguistic system. As long as they can be pronounced easily and as long as they convey the intended meaning, people continue to use the language.
How do we view this entry of foreign words into the local culture?  Can we view this as a sign of colonization?  Or can we view this as a new tool? There is ‘traffic’ and ‘mobility’ between languages says Radhakrishnan. The cultural issues following the trails of languages also have played a major role in the shaping up of social values.  The Tamils would rather have an Anglicized Tamil rather than a Hindified Tamil.  The issue of culture was deeply intertwined with the Tamil sentiments that it gave the platform for political parties to launch themselves with the issue of language.  Radhakrishnan points out how for a Tamilian, language is surely a carrier of culture and it just cannot be a tool for communication alone. The same Tamilian is able to accept the language from a faraway culture, as he thinks actually the people will never actually be influenced by European culture. Tamil Nadu is geographically much away from the English speaking countries making it safe to write and speak the language only as a tool of communication. The steady dropout of students interested in English Literature and the dilution of English syllabuses have been the result of a silent move towards English as a technical language than as a cultural language.  Students reading in BA English and MA English in Tamil Nadu Universities are not really exposed to major chunks of English novels or literary texts as they used to be before 25 years or so. Massive political ideologies have been steadily coming down from social agencies reaching school and college campuses that speaking English in a college campus encourages a slight mockery. A parallel thought current that English is a language of snobbery has gained currency among the youth that students do not want to appear too stylish and arrogant. One wants to be local in an educated scenario today as it means you are loyal to your motherland – Tamil Nadu.   The State has managed to establish language labs and spoken English Institutes where cultureless English is taught, training students to use the language as a tool for communication.
The Tamilian is in the process of evaporating English geographical culture and making it a language only for technical communication.  Nevertheless, English culture is still around in the name of Soft skills and body language. This makes it very clear as emphasized by Ngugi that “Language, any language, has a dual character: it is both a means of communication and a carrier of culture..... (English) is widely used as a means of communication across many nationalities” [as cited by Radhakrishnan, p.70]. English became the official national language and removing English words from our day to day life would be a huge attempt at decolonization of the mind, but after a people leave a language behind in a colonized land, slowly words lose their original importance and even slowly gain fresh meanings and added on relationships. Different worlds each conceived in its linguistic interiority communicate to form another type of syntax and present different shades of meaning. The hybrid world of this mixed language does not necessarily present a double consciousness. Two interiorized productions of words create the third interiorized significance, not presenting a dual awareness. Of the two mother words there is no inferior or superior, but a simple merge of the two worlds. It is the culmination of a ‘New Self’ which has been traditionally called ‘hybrid’ or a ‘melting pot.’ It rather appears to be ‘hybrid.’ If human memory has the ability to look back for 5000 years, then one would recognize perhaps every word having a hybridism. Limited by our vision, we have a tendency to freeze the current changes in languages and culture as hybrid. Heterogeneity assumes there is a mono-geneity, taking it for granted that there are pure forms of culture and language and culture never change in certain conditions.
Works cited

Luhmann, Niklas. Art as a Social System.  Translated by Eva M. Knodt. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000.
Luhmann, Niklas. The Reality of the  Mass Media: Cultural memory in the Present.  Translation Polity Press.  Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000.
Radhakrishnan R. “Why Translate?” Journal of Contemporary Thought. November 33, Summer, 2011.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.