I believe people act and think in the way that they were raised, and a similar example to that would be the language conversation we had in class today. Holt brought up the example of having freedom in a language, and that if you don't have it in your language, then you won't have an understanding of what it means. There are certain ideas and thoughts that are hidden within a language, things that you couldn't explain to another person unless they knew that language. As people grow, they become stuck in their language and thoughts, and it takes a lot of mental stimulation to make them change their minds or consider something new. However, one way to combat that is to have constant mental stimulation as you grow, such as getting exposed to multiple languages when you are young. Children and people who grow up learning multiple languages, while they speak later in life, have a better understanding of the world around them, and are able to use more of their potential.
If you only know one way of thinking, your decisions and the way you interact with people won't grow. Or using Holt's example, you may never know the word freedom and all that comes with it. As my Uber driver correctly said, with every new language, you are another person, with another person's thoughts and perspectives. When I speak Russian, I am more quiet and I speak slowly. When I speak German, I speak quickly and with a lot of emotion. When I speak English, I speak quietly and quickly. Each of my languages symbolizes a different thought set, and all of those together, not just an individual one, is how I interact in my social sphere, and I use all three to constantly keep me stimulated.
- Eli
yes
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that language has a large affect on how a person interacts with others speaking the same language. Depending on where you are and who you are with really reflects how you present yourself and what part of your identity you use in that situation. Language as well as culture plays an integral role in the development of the brain which in turn significantly affects our identities as we mature and grow older. I was wondering if you could connect this to how constructivism can be seen as idealistic? Do you believe that some people see constructivism as more of a social theory which cannot be concretely applied to anything? Or do you see the criticism that constructivism is ideal are people who may not truly understand the power of language and identity and how those intertwine to form a state's identity?
ReplyDeleteI can totally relate to the multiple languages phenomenon that both Holt and you so eloquently described; because, I was also raised up to learn both languages simultaneously. However, knowing the language itself does not entirely effect how one behave or way of thinking, the cultural context is imperative to this discussion. What I mean by cultural context is the concept of low context and high context cultures--an analysis of how different culture communicate within its group and to its surrounding. A language, like Vietnamese, contains the word "hear/heard"; however, because it is a high context culture (focus on the physical setting) the word "see/saw" would be used in replace of the latter word. Meanwhile, in American culture, a low context culture, relied heavily on verbal abilities to communicate means that there is little need to consider the physical context of what is being said. The differences between low/high context communication is once again set by the different cultural norms/identities--another example of how constructivism isn't really farfetched from the reality. Would you agree with that or maybe not?
ReplyDelete