Response to David Abram

One of the more appealing concepts behind Arbam’s theories is his bringing to attention the idea that humanity first considered language in relation to the environment around them, almost as if reactionary, and now with the introduction to technology, how that language-environment relationship has changed. However, when he comments that “If human discourse is experienced by indigienous, oral peoples with the speech of birds…and even the wind, how could it ever have become severed from the vaster life?” Essentially saying that cultures today cannot have the connection older, pre-industry cultures had. Once he had made this claim I tried to think about that and agreed at first, but then wondered just how many cultures actually fell under this category. He seems condemning to all of humanity (maybe condemning is too harsh of a word) and very pessimistic about it.
I can’t help but think that there has to be some sort of culture today, perhaps not as large as “centralized” as he puts it, as Western cultures, but certainly something has to be out there where an integration into technological aspects have still been able to exist along with a lingual-natural relationship. The Amish perhaps? Modern Natives? I think of a customer I help at my job how’s a Native American chief and holds pow wows, tribal functions, etc, but still drives, uses a hearing aid because he’s slightly deaf and makes copies in a store. At the same time he still has the traditions and earthly links to nature that the writer seemed to be insisting that isn’t around anymore.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

No comments yet. Be the first.

Leave a Reply

Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar