Language and history are inevitably intertwined; and this combination often results in the emergence of what we may call “narratives”.? Is this a 'basic-assumption', to paraphrase Bion's summary of our group-think sense-of-reality? No human history before the invention of the 'sounds & symbols' nature of language? A basic assumption that unwritten history is somehow, not really history? And a basic assumption of the educated mind's spell-binding literacy skills? "Oh look! A Tree?" Yet, that extraordinary creation of Mother Nature, is surely not, a reality-labelling Word? Even though the subconsciously 'automatic' nature of perceptual behaviour can make it 'feel' that way?
Thank you for the question, and for taking the time to read the piece David. Actually, no, I'm not saying there had been no human history prior to the invention of language. I'm simply saying that language and history have become intertwined. After all, if there was no language, how could we 'talk' about history at all? This was sort of my train of thought.
I also talk about history in other parts of Why Language Matters: history as an objective and factual phenomenon (which you are referring to), which exists independently from language or anything else. Then there is the history we ourselves create through language and narratives, and this history is more often than not considered as human history (by individuals, people; maybe not scholars like yourself). Of course, unwritten history is history, but we can still use language and narratives to 'bend it to our image or will' -- as also explored in my articles -- and thus 're-create' it (to some extent). This is, of course, only my take while taking into account what's happening between Russia and Ukraine.
I am not sure about Bion's theory, but maybe we could draw parallels between Foucault's or Derrida's poststructuralist ideas, assuming that history is a narrative -- shaped and constructed by those with the means to record it (those who can use language). So, again, history obviously exists independently, we only have the means to shape, record and influence it through language.
And yes, we may often fall into thinking that unwritten history is not really history -- that's also maybe the reason behind Putin's 'On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians'. He maybe felt he needed to put 'his history' into writing to make it more 'real'. Which, I agree, is fundamentally flawed; still, it somehow seems to play a role in this particular case (and maybe some others) -- in narratives shaping our idea of history.
As to the tree, of course, I don't create the tree by labelling it. It had been there long before I labelled it, and probably will be long after. The tree doesn't need my word for it to exist. But, it would seem, Putin's myth does need the words.
Fun fact: we can derive that name (Volodymyr / Vladimir) into Modern English given its early Germanic roots.
The first element is cognate with English 'wield' (and Latin val- as in 'valid', 'valor', 'value' etc), and the second element, while originally with connotations of greatness, ends up now in English merely as the word 'mere. So, we'd've had Wieldmere!
Ash, thank you, I did not know that! The prefix "val-" is indeed often used in connotation with wielding (and often it is power) – also in Tolkien's mythology (Valar – the gods/powers; Valhalla – from Viking mythology).
The second part, "mere" – is indeed ironic, given the context. "Mir" is also often a word that means "peace" (мир in Russian; mier in Slovak; mír in Czech and so on...) – so I was also thinking in this direction; thanks for clarifying!
Language and history are inevitably intertwined; and this combination often results in the emergence of what we may call “narratives”.? Is this a 'basic-assumption', to paraphrase Bion's summary of our group-think sense-of-reality? No human history before the invention of the 'sounds & symbols' nature of language? A basic assumption that unwritten history is somehow, not really history? And a basic assumption of the educated mind's spell-binding literacy skills? "Oh look! A Tree?" Yet, that extraordinary creation of Mother Nature, is surely not, a reality-labelling Word? Even though the subconsciously 'automatic' nature of perceptual behaviour can make it 'feel' that way?
Thank you for the question, and for taking the time to read the piece David. Actually, no, I'm not saying there had been no human history prior to the invention of language. I'm simply saying that language and history have become intertwined. After all, if there was no language, how could we 'talk' about history at all? This was sort of my train of thought.
I also talk about history in other parts of Why Language Matters: history as an objective and factual phenomenon (which you are referring to), which exists independently from language or anything else. Then there is the history we ourselves create through language and narratives, and this history is more often than not considered as human history (by individuals, people; maybe not scholars like yourself). Of course, unwritten history is history, but we can still use language and narratives to 'bend it to our image or will' -- as also explored in my articles -- and thus 're-create' it (to some extent). This is, of course, only my take while taking into account what's happening between Russia and Ukraine.
I am not sure about Bion's theory, but maybe we could draw parallels between Foucault's or Derrida's poststructuralist ideas, assuming that history is a narrative -- shaped and constructed by those with the means to record it (those who can use language). So, again, history obviously exists independently, we only have the means to shape, record and influence it through language.
And yes, we may often fall into thinking that unwritten history is not really history -- that's also maybe the reason behind Putin's 'On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians'. He maybe felt he needed to put 'his history' into writing to make it more 'real'. Which, I agree, is fundamentally flawed; still, it somehow seems to play a role in this particular case (and maybe some others) -- in narratives shaping our idea of history.
As to the tree, of course, I don't create the tree by labelling it. It had been there long before I labelled it, and probably will be long after. The tree doesn't need my word for it to exist. But, it would seem, Putin's myth does need the words.
Fun fact: we can derive that name (Volodymyr / Vladimir) into Modern English given its early Germanic roots.
The first element is cognate with English 'wield' (and Latin val- as in 'valid', 'valor', 'value' etc), and the second element, while originally with connotations of greatness, ends up now in English merely as the word 'mere. So, we'd've had Wieldmere!
Ash, thank you, I did not know that! The prefix "val-" is indeed often used in connotation with wielding (and often it is power) – also in Tolkien's mythology (Valar – the gods/powers; Valhalla – from Viking mythology).
The second part, "mere" – is indeed ironic, given the context. "Mir" is also often a word that means "peace" (мир in Russian; mier in Slovak; mír in Czech and so on...) – so I was also thinking in this direction; thanks for clarifying!