It is no longer us, but language itself that increasingly dominates us. In place of the former «inspiration from above», a new driving force is unfolding that seems to be patronising people again. Read an abridged version of Nicolai Petersen's appeal for a more conscious use of language from the magazine «die Drei».
As in other countries in the western world, there is a strange new atmosphere in Germany. Although the traditional freedom of expression has not changed in this country, the feeling is spreading that certain things can only be said behind closed doors. Otherwise, you will suddenly be accused of extremism, racism, homophobia, denial of reality, hostility to progress and the like.
The list of verbal weapons with which people and opinions are attacked on a daily basis is long. For example, we read about «science deniers», «misogynists», «climate sinners» and «enemies of democracy». It is therefore understandable that peace-loving contemporaries have become wary of entering the battlefield of the «free» exchange of opinions, where they are exposed to dangerous offence and slander.
We are talking about a phenomenon known as the radicalisation and polarisation of communication. Even in neutral reporting, there is constant talk of «struggle», as if people are fundamentally opposed to each other, as if they have to constantly assert themselves against opponents and enemies. This culminates in sweeping judgements such as, politics is «failing», the economy is «cheating», the press is «lying».
This tendency contrasts with another, which at first glance appears to be exactly the opposite. It is called «sensitisation» for language. In order to avoid discrimination of all kinds, there is a call for conscious use of terms. This is most obvious in the area of «gender-sensitive» language. However, terms that have or could have a discriminatory connotation are also being removed from our vocabulary in relation to population groups, minorities or ethnic groups. However, this sensitisation is not left to individuals and their linguistic sensibilities. Instead, «experts» tell the language community that certain terms need to be changed.
In private conversations, however, the traditional «insensitive» use of language continues unabated. At the kitchen table, people continue to talk about «teachers» and «pupils» and «colleagues» without hesitation. However, as soon as the audience grows, written statements are due, or even a microphone and camera appear, i.e. the dangerous terrain of the public sphere is entered, the speaker switches to the «correct» use of language. This raises the question: What are people actually sensitised for? For the language itself – or for the person who hears it?
A kind of new diglossia (bilingualism) has developed, a phenomenon familiar from dictatorial countries (e.g. «special operation» instead of «war»). If you are caught «speaking the wrong language» in public, protestations of innocence are usually of little help. Although you won't be imprisoned for such an offence in this country, «language sensitisation» taken to extremes can lead to a devastating level of controversy and reputational damage.1
Words such as «language dictatorship» and «language policemen» are already circulating.2
Words instead of thoughts
This is reminiscent of what Rudolf Steiner calls «thinking in words». «What prevents people from having thoughts in the widest circle of our lives is that for ordinary day-to-day usage people do not always have the need to really penetrate to the thought, but that instead of thought they are content with words. Most of what is called thinking in ordinary life takes place in words. One thinks in words.»3
How is that to be understood? Don't we always think in words? Is it even possible to think without words?
The language we use is a product of the past. It reflects the society, the cultural values, the way of thinking of earlier times. In addition to all the wisdom and depth that it carries over from ancient times, language also contains everything that we distance ourselves from today (or at least endeavour to do so): the egotism of tribal and ethnic groups, the contempt and discrimination of other peoples, the patriarchal society, the slavery of the Greeks and Romans. All of this has left its mark on the language.
As a product of the past, language always puts up a certain resistance to the progressive development of consciousness and must be constantly renewed. In the words of the French linguist Roland Barthes: «When it comes to language, man is both master and slave – slave because he is dependent on collecting what is «lying around» in the language, master because he can use the finds as he pleases.»4
To put it more concretely: a person is a slave above all in relation to the words he finds in the language and which he can only change to a limited extent. People are masters with regard to the sentences that they can form from the available word material. He can collect the word material that is «lying around» and combine it into his own statements, can «spin» a thread of thought from the words and «weave» the threads into a text. (The word text comes from the Latin textus «the woven, braided»).
Clear thinking unfolds in the sentence
In this sense, every authentic oral or written statement by a person is a «text». Behind it is an author who «means» something. The more this «opinion» moves away from the content and values of the past, the more difficult it becomes to express it in the words of conventional language. This can lead to a «struggle with language», as Steiner calls it, because language already expresses something «by itself».5 We called it «echoes» above. These are associations and memories of something past, emotions and resentments that are aroused because the words in question may have been «soiled» by unpleasant predecessors. In short, words are carriers of feelings. Corresponding to their watery, emotional character, words always have a more or less «blurred» meaning.
Clear thinking can only really unfold at the next higher level of language, in the sentence. Here the words have to «subordinate» themselves to the train of thought, have to «obey» the laws of syntax, are «inflected». Connotations are authorised or «defused» by the context. If necessary, the words are redefined. If it is not possible to express the desired meaning straight away, a second sentence can be added to relativise and explain the first. The train of thought is then not derived from the individual words, but from the way in which they are «linked». This is human activity, not linguistic activity. The longer and more differentiated a text becomes, the more the individual words take on a «serving» function. (...)
Dependence on the word
In this context, Steiner speaks of a «bondage» to language and, like Roland Barthes, uses the image of the «slave».6 What binds man to language is precisely this semi-conscious sphere of feeling, where man is «grown together» with language in his soul, even in his body through the unconscious mother tongue acquisition in early childhood.7 Here, he «swims» in the language and experiences it in all its power and depth. But he must also be able to detach himself from it, to «emancipate» himself, as Steiner calls it, if he wants to develop as an individual. Words per se have no reality in earthly life, they are nothing absolute (i.e. «detached»). Is the use of «man» and «he» through this paragraph accidental or ironic?!
When the feeling spreads that people can no longer use their language independently and freely, this is exactly what happens: Language is taken for something absolute. Steiner describes this in the following way: «The word has gradually become something that floats on the surface of human life and to which people cling. The word has gradually become something that one accepts as something solid.»8 (...)
There are indeed various indications that we are becoming accustomed to a way of thinking that is increasingly dependent on the word.
Significantly, the online communication of our time seems to be playing a decisive role here. The pandemic has given it another huge boost, as has the sharpness of the controversy surrounding the major existential issues of health, security, freedom and fundamental rights.
Rapid response
Through tweeting, chatting, posting etc., online communication has been tending towards ever shorter messages for years, i.e. a reduction in sentences in favour of single words. Images can also be used «synonymously» with words (photos, emoticons, cartoons, stickers, memes, etc.). The display of such exclamation-like signals is intended to express or evoke immediate attention and understanding, approval or disapproval. The predominantly binary judgement of a pro or con has long been «practised» in the networks with the like or dislike buttons. All it takes is one click to position yourself at the «positive» or «negative» pole – i.e. to «polarise» yourself.
In this way, the global synchronisation of communication through digital media means that language is increasingly experienced as a synchronous effect. In contrast to sentences, which run diachronically in time, words and images have an instantaneous effect. They are thrown into communication with all their «echoes» spontaneously, without long reflection, in order to be understood just as spontaneously. A mental link is not necessary, there is no if, because, although, maybe, however. Communication processes can travel around the world in seconds and bring millions of people together within a few hours, without them having to think or process much information. (...)
Language and freedom
In earlier times, when logos still meant both word and thought, it was justified that language «patronised» people and guided their thinking. This was experienced as a source of wisdom and was the great inspirer of a humanity that lived much more strongly in a linguistic-collective consciousness.
Today however, we are trying to free ourselves from the old group consciousness, strive for independent thinking, personal development and identity, and we tend to experience the old, sluggish communication medium of language more than ever as an obstacle to our endeavours for progress. As a result, it has become customary, almost a matter of course, to combat these obstacles by arbitrarily influencing language in the interests of our own ideas and interests. As a result, the disputes that should actually take place on an individual and intellectual level are shifting further and further «down» into the language until they have become pure word battles.
Here, the originally «imagined» content slips away from consciousness and is seized by collective-anonymous dynamics that no one can control. The words suddenly – as if from nowhere – create the impression of the absolute. It no longer matters whether they are produced by a person or a machine. They no longer need to be «thought», it is enough to «show» them. In this way, they develop the «magic power» that Steiner spoke of, which gains dominance over thinking.
In place of the former «inspiration from above», a new driving force in the development of language is unfolding in this way, which once again endeavours to patronise people.
It could be called «tyranny from below»[10] due to its unconscious effect. It works all the more strongly the less it is noticed, i.e. the less we penetrate the words with our own consciousness and use them simply for the sake of their «magic power». If we «blindly» resort to such words in order to literally «over-talk» the other person with their force, it is – even if we do not realise it or do not intend it – an attack on their freedom. If he or she responds with the same means, we stand in front of each other, not «understanding» each other, as it is called. In reality, it is not «not understanding» at all, but language, with its subliminal effects and judgements, has prevented us from wanting to listen to each other at all. It has separated us instead of connecting us. An exchange of thoughts has not taken place at all.
It seems that we can no longer use our language in as carefree a way as before, and we now need to pay new attention to it. By analogy with external nature, one could ask: How do we achieve a new linguistic «environmental awareness»? How do we learn to deal with language in such a way that we do not exploit its energies without restraint, but also consider the consequences of this behaviour for the social environment, peace in the world and future generations? By «fighting with language», Steiner did not mean that I fight with your language and influence you, but that I do it with my language so as not to take away your freedom.
Nicolai Petersen
English Translation: Trevor Mepham
You can find Petersen's unabridged text in «die Drei», the German journal for anthroposophy in science, art and social life, (6/2022, pp. 65-76), where the article was first published.
References
1: This is how the accusations of racism against the former head of the Schalke 04 football club, Clemens Tönnies, were reported in the media for weeks. A detailed account with the exact wording of the statements and an analysis of the subsequent events in the public debate by Thomas Fischer in a «Spiegel» column from 15 August 2019: www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/clemens-toennies-und-rassismus-wurst-und-wahn-kolumne-a-1281747.html
2: For example, in a statement by Baden-Württemberg's Minister President Winfried Kretschmann on the subject of gendering, where he tries to represent the viewpoint of a moderate centre. Nobody should be hurt by language, but he is against «language policemen». Cf. www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/winfried-kretschmann-ist-gegen-vorschriften-fuer-geschlechtergerechte-sprache-a-dc28aa3e-3303-44a9-9b2c-995e7b89b311
3: Lecture of 20 January 1914 in Rudolf Steiner: «Der menschliche und der kosmische Gedanke» (GA 151), Dornach 1990, p. 10.
4: Quoted from www.fr.de/kultur/gesellschaft/negernegertal-unterneger-namenaenderung-diskussion-debatte-sprache-olpe-biggesee-90161388.html
5:Rudolf Steiner: «Sprache und Sprachgeist» in his «Der Goetheanumgedanke inmitten der Kulturkrisis der Gegenwart» (GA 36), Dornach 1961, p. 297.
6: Cf. lecture of 17 January 1920 in his «Geistige und soziale Wandlungen in der Menschheitsentwickelung» (GA 196), Dornach 1992, p. 80.
7: To be «grown together» with language unconsciously, i.e. in feeling and willing, is an expression often used by Steiner, cf. lecture of 17 October 1918 in his «Die Ergänzung heutiger Wissenschaften durch Anthroposophie» (GA 73), Dornach 1987, p. 367.
8: Lecture of 31 December 1917 in his «Mystery Truths and Christmas Impulses. Ancient Myths and their Meaning» (GA 180), Dornach 1980, p. 118.
9: Cf. www.owid.de/docs/neo/listen/corona.jsp#
10: Lecture of 26 December 1919 in «Geisteswissenschaftliche Sprachbetrachtungen» (GA 299), Dornach 1981, p. 17. According to Steiner, it is a real spiritual entity that is interested in gaining control over human thinking by way of the subconscious, especially through language. Steiner calls this entity Ahriman. Cf. lecture of 17 January 1920 in his «Spiritual and Social Changes in the Development of Humanity» (GA 196), Dornach 1992.