|
Abstract:
|
"There is a world of difference between the commons and common property. There is an intimate linkage between language used to describe the commons and the perception and use of commons—how ‘the commons’ have been translated from practice to restrictive usage. The words used to describe often become the gateway to perception. Language is a good indicator of how we think, and how we define the physical, and psychosocial universe around us. Language not only expresses what we think, but to a large degree shapes our perceptions, self-perception and in constructing how we think. Languages are knowledge systems, not merely a collection of words. The individual addressed by an honorific is more likely to feel respected than one addressed by a demeaning one. Used continuously, these descriptors are internalised. Languages of peoples in tropical lands seldom have words for snow, but the Eskimo have more than a dozen words for it. Similarly, warlike peoples, feudal societies have no words for democracy and consensual decision making or polity. Eminent domain and terra nullius are carryovers from a feudal era. Though language influences how we think, it is not deterministic. There is a popular misconception that language determines thought, and we cannot go beyond the limits of language. The fallacious view is largely based on the work of Benjamin Lee Whoft. Peoples do go beyond the limitations of language in countless ways—by creating new words, using old words creatively and by importing words from other languages. A person from a tropical land, with a mother tongue that does not have a word for snow can know what snow is. However, language does direct what we must think of when we use it and the richness of our perceptions."
|