What does language have to do with anything?

I began listening to the audiobook of Alan Watt’s “Introduction to Zen Buddhism”, and I’m floored. I haven’t even gotten into the meat of the book. He’s simply discussing the differences between Western and Eastern cultures. I thought I was fairly well versed in these differences, since I studied similar topics about Western and Mid-Eastern cultures. That didn’t make a difference here because Eastern cultures are their own entity, not to be conflated with the Mid-East.

In particular, Watt’s mentioned that Eastern cultures tend to think holistically/ecologically, whereas Western culture tends to think more analytically/categorically, and this is reflected in their language as it is both spoken and written. Thus, if asked to categorize three objects (panda, monkey, and banana), an Asian is more likely to link monkey and banana by the verb “eat,” whereas a Westerner is more likely to link panda and monkey by the category of “mammals.” This isn’t just about emphasizing verbs or nouns, but reflects an innate perspective of the world. Ask yourself, when you think of the world, do you define people, nature, and other stuff by what it is, or by how it is connected or related to other things?

Researchers did an experiment to determine whether certain Eastern and Western cultures favor verbs or nouns when learning a language. Each were given an animated image to describe. Asians were more likely to focus on the relationships between objects, and between objects and the environment, such as fish eating squid, swimming in a coral reef. By contrast, Westerners were more likely to focus on individual objects, such a blue fish, translucent squid, white bleached coral, calm ocean, etc.[1]

Asians use a high-context language to communicate that relies upon their environment, the context of the conversation, the person speaking and the person listening, an agreed upon cultural understanding, body language, and other nonverbal cues.[2] Words can have multiple meanings based on context. Without context, the language is difficult if not impossible to understand, because words or phrases that are obvious to both the speaker and listener will often be omitted, leaving something that sounds like nonsense. For example, “I’m going to watch a movie,” becomes, “Movie watch”. In Chinese, the language is so dependent on the context, it cannot be understood without it.

By contrast, Westerners (including Europeans) use a predominately low-context language which disregards the environment, resulting in a more direct or literal manner of speech that is less open to interpretation. The language speaks for itself without regard to the social status or age of the speaker or listener, without regard to the surrounding environment, without regard to what one is doing at the moment, without regard for shared cultural understanding, or any other unspoken cues.

This makes it particularly difficult for Westerners and Asians to communicate effectively. What is considered polite in one culture is considered rude in the other. What is considered obvious in one culture is consider obscure and even indecipherable in the other. This takes on even more significance when one culture appropriates the sacred texts or philosophical writings of the other and interprets it based on their own pre-existing language and perspective. The result is not an accurate rendering of the original writings, but a syncretism/merging of two different worldviews into something new, and it deserves a new name to identify it as something different than the original, because it is different than the original. For example, Western society has adopted Reiki from the Japanese, changing it into something new, and thus deserving a new name. The same is true of Westernized interpretations of Yoga, Chakras, Mantras, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shamanism, etc. I believe Western societies keep the original name of these belief systems because it lends a certain amount of historical credibility and authority to these reinterpreted belief systems, but in truth, none of these Westernized belief systems accurately reflect the intent and meaning of the original Eastern and Mid-Eastern cultures in which they developed. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it does add a layer of confusion to communication between Western and Eastern practitioners, and can be seen as disrespectful by the originating culture.

There’s another aspect to this that really blows my mind. I don’t know whether the worldview created the language or the language created the worldview, but it doesn’t take more than a cursory look at these two cultures to see that low or high context languages tend to mirror the worldview of the speakers, as seen in decision-making and everyday life. Asians value community and have philosophies/religions that promote a holistic view/relationship with the world. Westerner’s value individuality, and have philosophies/religions that promote a person-centric mindset.

It seems to me that Eastern high-context languages require people to be more present in the moment, more aware of their surroundings because context is everything. Just to properly greet someone in Korean, you have to know their age and social status. In Chinese languages, the meaning of words change, depending on the speaker’s gestures, stance, and tone, as well as social and contextual cues. Japanese will hint at their meanings using subtle social cues like body language and facial expressions rather than stating something outright. To communicate, listeners have to pay attention to the speaker. This requires attention and presence in the moment.

Paying attention isn’t just about the person but the environment. A word’s meaning changes based on what the speaker is doing. It’s about the relationship between the speaker and the environment, society, etc. Unsurprisingly, harmony becomes a priority. this is also seen in how these cultures view their environment and other people. Harmony and sharing become a priority and part of the common experience. Nothing happens independently of something else: what hurts you, hurts me. Everything is interconnected when a person is defined by the greater community and surrounding environment. It is not surprising, then, that many of their philosophical traditions (e.g. Daoism, Buddhism, Confucianism) emphasize the interconnectedness of all things, as do their pantheistic and animistic beliefs (e.g. Shamanism, Taoism, Shintoism, Hinduism). These belief systems all teach the essential interconnectivity and harmony between the earth and humanity. Humans and nature are seen as part of a unified, dynamic, and interconnected whole, that encourages people to extend their moral concern to all things in nature.

By contrast, Western cultures use a low-context language where the words and syntax stand on their own. Words make sense without knowing who you’re speaking to, what’s happening around you, or other common social constructs. The language is explicit and self-explanatory. You don’t need to be self-aware, present, or in the moment, because the language is understood apart from the environment and social cues. This reflects the Western attitude of individuality, distinctiveness, and separation from the greater whole. It is a reductionist mentality, that places the wellbeing of oneself above the community.

Western religions tend to be guided by exceptionalism. As a general rule, Western religions make a clear distinction between humans and everything else. Humans possess the soul, the eternal life, and the blessings of their Creator. Humans, and only humans, possesses the right to live. Everything on the planet, including the planet itself, is viewed as separate from humanity, here solely for human use. By denying the sentience of everything else, Western culture gives itself permission to exterminate, cull, and ravage nature for its own benefit, without recognizing humanity’s dependence upon the earth for its own survival. This is particularly evident in how decisions were made regarding nature.

In the early 1900s, Yellowstone Park rangers saw wolves as a nuisance to cattle ranchers. They didn’t understand that wolves are part of an interconnected system, seeing them as separate and independent from their environment. Rangers started an extermination program and by 1926 they killed them all. Within the next 70 years, exploding populations of deer and elk overgrazed the land and trees. Without trees, songbirds (that spread tree seeds) left and beavers had no wood to build dams, so the streams began to erode. Willows couldn’t grow in the degraded streams, so the river was unprotected from the sun. The stream became too hot for cold water fish so they began dying out. Yellowstone was dying because of Western thinkers didn’t see holistically, but individually. Fortunately, some learned from this situation and reintroduced wolves to the region. Within a decade, the region began to ecologically balance.

In the same vein, in the 1970s, Western-thinking ecologists believed elephants were causing desertification in what is now known as Zambia, so they killed over 40,000 elephants to save the African savannah. Not only did it fail, it made the savannah degrade even faster. What these ecologists didn’t understand at the time was how savannahs depend upon the elephants. “These herds grazed, defecated, stomped and salivated as they moved around, building soil and deepening plant roots. Without the constant activity of large numbers of bunched animals, the biological cycle (birth, growth, death, decay) was interrupted and the grasslands and their once-rich soils turned into dry, exposed desert land.”[3] Just like the Yellowstone Park rangers, these ecologists saw nature as a bunch of individual parts instead of an interconnected whole.

I don’t know which came first (language or culture) and I don’t know if it even matters, but it seems clear to me that low-context languages (like English) instill a sense a separation between us and everything else. Our tendency to define things by categories/labels instead of relationships, speaking without awareness of the present environment, placing individuality above community, and promoting human exceptionalism (that doesn’t acknowledge the sentience within all things), have done the Western world a disservice.

We may not be able to change the language itself, but we can change our relationship to it by focusing on what unifies instead of divides, what brings harmony instead of discord, what works with nature instead of against it, what builds up instead of tearing down.

---------------------------------

[1] For a more depth look at the differences on how Western and Eastern cultures acquire language, see https://groups.psych.northwestern.edu/waxman/documents/LavinHallWaxman2006ActionMeetsWord.pdf

[2] These may differ depending upon the specific Asian country. Korean is hierarchical language. “Social hierarchy is ingrained in the language, more than any other language of the world, and depending on who you are talking to will determine what vocabulary, verb endings, particles, suffixes and address terms to use. Scholars say that traditionally there were 8 levels of honorific endings and around 4-6 are in use today.” (https://asiasociety.org/korea/lost-translation-cultural-differences-linguistic-aspect#:~:text=Korean%20on%20the%20other%20hand,or%20in%20meetings%20and%20negotiations.)

[3] Drawn from https://savory.global/what-is-holistic-management/