On Language and Identity

In perhaps one of his most renowned quotes, Aristotle once said “We are what we repeatedly do”. A powerful axiom that many have applied to integrate small habits of success into their lives. But if truly we are defined by the sum total of our actions and thoughts, and these thoughts first form in the language of our minds, is the very essence of who we are not in some way affected by our language?

In a stunning and engaging discussion on the interrelatedness of Language and Identity, presented by Lauren Mongie over this past week, I (for this first time) began to grasp the intricacies of language, culture, identity and  just what the amalgamation of our sense of self truly consists of.

While this relationship is by no means new to our quest of understanding the self, I was more drawn to the ways in which our language does influence our sense of identity, as opposed to understanding identity as “something dynamic … not static, and defined rather by the collection of the various roles we play in our society”, as Mongie appropriately described.

Surely if we use our language to express these identities, the concept of such roles in itself is confined by the parameters of the language? This led me to ponder rather on the way in which language influences our identity and sense of self through its inclusion or exclusion of concepts and ideas – a topic more along the line of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s theories of how our definitions of words emerge from culture & society. But if words are what we use to define roles- then surely roles too emerge from culture and society? Wittgentein continues to argue that to understand and see how language works, one must acknowledge its function in social scenarios. A cool by-product of this notion is known as “Arbitrariness” and you can read more about that here)

(A more fruity explanation on Wittgenstein's theory  here) 

A perfect example to illustrate how the exclusion of concepts found in languages that are in some ways grammatically limited compared to others can be found in the notion of the “subjunctive” in English. In a moving, eye opening Tedx Talk by Phuc Tran, we can find a connection between how a language allows us to grasp concepts and express ourselves in ways that another language does not – for it’s lack of shared Pragmatic knowledge.

I particularly enjoyed Mental Floss’s article on whether or not we would be able to think without a language. After all, if our very definition of roles are defined by words, and words themselves are defined by our conceptual understanding of their meaning, given the arbitrary nature of all human language, surely our very understanding of and identification with our roles in society is fundamentally dictated then, by the language we speak? And surely this would allow for further discovery of self through learning new languages, and with them, the beautiful real of foreign concepts which they unlock.

Perhaps it is safe to say then; that truth can be found beyond Aristotle’s definition of self through action, action which is influenced by thought, and as the above findings have so eloquently connected, thoughts and concepts arise from our ability to comprehend them- an ability tightly related to language. Even if by a few degrees of philosophical relativity, I certainly do think that our language plays a greater role in defining who we are that what we are aware of.