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.
