Culture and Communication: 'Expressive Language' by Amiri Baraka
Speech is the effective form of a culture.
This is the first sentence to Baraka’s essay ‘Expressive Language’. I restate it at the beginning of this entry not only because it is the one thing that struck me most from reading the essay. It is short and it is simple. It caught my attention. I restate it because I firmly believe that language and communication is not only the root of our single culture, but our entire society, our human race. As Baraka claims in the conclusion, communication is “the broadest root of education”. And it is communication that brings us all together.
Amiri Baraka also emphasizes on how our communication is deeply influenced by our context and our culture, arguing that the “artist must use the language and semantics unique to his culture to create his art, and that the work should also be understood within the context of that culture”. The way in which we approach any literary work, will be see with a different perspective, depending on who we are and our cultural background. It is because of this that “the form of thought’s passage through the world will take on as many diverse shapes as there are diverse groups of travelers”. I found this aspect of the essay very important because it clearly connects to the own author, Amiri Baraka, also known as LeRoi Jones. I think that his writing will promote his culture, “promoting a black aesthetic”. Baraka is a black nationalist and founder of the Black Arts Movement; therefore I think that the arguments he gives about culture and language are very valid and important.
In poetry, or actually in any work of art, culture and context play an important role in an individual's perception and interpretation of it. The manner in which each person approaches a literary work might be completely different to another person. Nevertheless, each of those interpretations are completely valid, also because art gives you that freedom of interpretation. Art expresses itself differently depending on the individual, and what the individual needs to see from it.
In poetry, or actually in any work of art, culture and context play an important role in an individual's perception and interpretation of it. The manner in which each person approaches a literary work might be completely different to another person. Nevertheless, each of those interpretations are completely valid, also because art gives you that freedom of interpretation. Art expresses itself differently depending on the individual, and what the individual needs to see from it.
I would like to end with this quote from the essay, because it really summarizes what I interpret as one of the most important aspects discussed by Baraka. Taking it perhaps to a more global scale, misinterpretation of language has always been and is a cause of conflict, and even our perception of truth can be altered because of this.
“But for every item in the world, there are a multiplicity of definitions that fit. And every word we use could mean something else. And at the same time. The culture fixes the use, and usage”.
Hooola
ReplyDeleteSo I noticed you talked a lot about some of the more subjective aspects of human knowledge, like art and social sciences. I'm interested in hearing what your thoughts are regarding some of the more objective areas of human understanding, like the natural sciences and math. Do you think in these cases language can lead to misinterpretation from various viewpoints, even though the knowledge itself is objective? And to what extent do you think this can occur?
Hey there!
ReplyDeleteI also really enjoyed Baraka's essay. Even though I found it quite difficult to understand at times, certain ideas and quotes that I picked out really hit home.
In my post I mentioned how Baraka's emphasis on the speaker of the poem and the speaker's background and culture apply very much to spoken word poetry, or poetry that is performed and meant to be read aloud. Because I think written poetry is meant to stand alone - the words should tell it all. But Baraka's style of poetry removes the emphasis from the words and puts it on the speaker, and the speaker's rhythm, syntax, diction, grammar, intonation, etc. I suppose what I mean is that, while I think Baraka's principles are wonderful, they don't apply to all types of poetry. Or they do, and written poetry that is meant to stand alone is just another form of reflection of the poet's culture...
There were a few quotes from the essay that I highlighted because I thought they were brilliant, and I totally agreed! They are in my blog post : http://3nina.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/spoken-word/
“I heard an old Negro street singer last week, Reverend Pearly Brown, singing, ‘God don’t never change!’ This is a precise thing he is singing. He does not mean ‘God does not ever change!’ He means ‘God don’t never change!’”
The reverend doesn't speak with impeccable grammar, but he means what he says and he means to say it that way. If someone were to write down what the reverend said, but change it -"God does not ever change!"- then the significance of what he says would be lost! Anyone could say "God does not ever change!", but the phrase "God don't never change!" is that it reflects a different culture and background.
“An A flat played twice on the same saxophone by two different men does not have to sound the same.”
This was another of my favorite quotes, because it is so true! AND it's a metaphor Baraka uses to show how the speaker is the most important element of a poem, and the words are secondary.
I think this is a very interesting claim - I have always been taught the importance of words, how poems are all about words, words must be chosen so carefully because each implies something different. But Baraka refutes these lessons, claiming that it is actually the speaker who makes the poem!
DO you agree? If so, or if not I guess, do you think this applies to all forms of poetry?
Sorry for writing so much :P
Nina
Hey guys! So thank you for commenting on this post. I really liked Baraka's essay, and I hope my post gave you some ideas, as you guys have given me.
ReplyDeleteSo... Wesley!!! : As one of the areas of knowing, language alters our perception. I think that it somehow affects the arts and social sciences more than the natural sciences and math. As I mentioned, misinterpretations of language throughout history are one of the causes of conflicts between groups and nations, and I think this kind of misinterpretation is far more important than those that can occur while studying math or natural sciences. Nevertheless, I think that language can be a barrier in maths and the natural sciences, not so much by the meaning of words, but the language itself (english, spanish, etc). For international students like us, we have to adapt our knowledge to different languages (for example, I had to "switch" all my knowledge from spanish to english) and this creates conflicts in my ability to understand the material. So basically, I don't think that the "definition of words" is altered in the sciences, because it's like a more "universal language", especially math. I hope I made my point clear :)
And now... Nina! :)
First of all, you're amazing. I read your blog post in order to understand a little more your comment and it's just so good! So congratulations on that. Now, answering your question, I think that in poetry diction is very important, and the word choice creates the tone and meaning of the poem. However, from reading your blog post, I have realized that the spoken word does not completely rely on this, and as you state, what defines the poem is the speaker rather than the words. Because of this, I have also become aware that poetry is not only that that is written in paper, but much much more! (YEY!) Take songs for instance, they're a form of poetry in which the way the artista sings the song, is vital to how the audience understands its meaning. However we can't leave out the importance of words.
I hope this answers a bit your question (I think I'm always too redundant)
:):)
Javi
I agree that language is not as much a barrier in math and the natural sciences as it would be in art or the human sciences, but it still is. If you remember, both Newton and Liebniz invented calculus at the same time, independent of each other. However, Newton's notation made way for difficulties in applications of his findings. Liebniz, on the other hand, used notation that made calculus quite accessible. This is in part why Germany became the centre of learning in mathematics and other areas of knowledge for the greater part of a century. Had Newton used easier notation, do you think the course of history would be different, with England rising to new heights of power? This is just one example of the effect of language on math and the natural sciences, but many more no doubtedly exist. What are your thoughts?
ReplyDeleteAnd here's to ToK