T. S. Eliot in Christianity and Culture writes on how a nation, as part of a cluster of nations, can achieve real and lasting peaceful unity. Many who write upon such themes veer toward one of two extremes: either peace will be achieved by the suppression of differences (which are seen as the root cause of quarrels), or it will come through universal isolation and fracturing (where everyone is concerned exclusively with their own business). Eliot, however, argues that true lasting unity and peace can only be achieved if people are loyal both to general corporate values, while at the same time being loyal to the local and particular.
He writes:
The unity with which I am concerned must be largely unconscious, and therefore can perhaps be best approached through a consideration of the useful diversities. Here I have to do with diversity of region. It is important that a man should feel himself to be, not merely a citizen of a particular nation, but a citizen of a particular part of his country, with local loyalties. These, like loyalty to class, arise out of loyalty to the family. (T. S. Eliot, Culture, p.125)This view captures an essential, Christian construct: the equal importance of the universal and the particular. This distinctly Christian doctrine is derived from the being and nature of God Himself. Our God is triune: within the Godhead, the particulars--namely the three Persons of the Godhead--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--are equally ultimate with the oneness of God. Thus, in the Being of God Himself, the one and the many are equally ultimate.
Unbelieving thought, captured by the machinations of a finite creature, will always drive toward either making the "many" absolute, or the "one". We see this tension everywhere in our modern Unbelieving culture. The libertarian or the anarchist absolutises the individual, seeing the collective as intrinsically dehumanising and destructive. The statist absolutises the one state. All diversity, when presented, exists only at the good pleasure of the social collective--provided it is within the bounds of the tolerable. So, the oneness of the collective squashes all diversity under the blanket of what is deemed politically correct.
The Christian position stands in sharp contrast to all Unbelieving ideologies and thought. "Oneness" and the "manyness" mutually co-inhere throughout the creation. Eliot illustrates this Christian distinctive by pointing to the essential power of local, regional languages to enrich a wider universally used language.
The question we may ask about such a language as Welsh, is whether it is of any value to the world at large, that it should be used in Wales. But this is really as much as to ask whether the Welsh, qua Welsh, are of any use? not, of course, as human beings, but as the preservers and continuers of a culture which is not English. The direct contribution to poetry by Welshmen and men of Welsh extraction, writing in English, is very considerable; and considerable also is the influence of their poetry upon poets of different racial origins. . . . But it must be remembered, that for the transmission of a culture--a particular way of thinking, feeling and behaving--that for its maintenance, there is no safeguard more reliable than a language. And to survive for this purpose it must continue to be a literary language--not necessarily a scientific language but certainly a poetic one: otherwise the spread of education will extinguish it.
The literature written in that language will not, of course, make any direct impact upon the world at large; but if it is no longer cultivated, the poeple to whom it belongs (we are considering particularly the Welsh) will tend to lose their racial character. The Welsh will be less Welsh; and their poets will cease to have any contribution to make to English literature, beyond their individual genius. And I am of the opinion, that the benefits which Scottish, Welsh and Irish writers have conferred upon English literature are far in excess of what the contribution of all these individual men of genius would have been had they, let us say, all been adopted in early infancy by English foster-parents." (Eliot, Culture, pp. 129--131)
In the light of this, let us make a few comments upon Maori Language Week. The preservation of the Maori language (and, therefore, culture) is commendable--as is the languages of all cultural groups in New Zealand (Polynesian, Asian, Middle-Eastern and so on). But this is something which must come from within Maoridom itself. We believe that Maori has probably made a classic blunder in attempting to make the language an official language, as if bilingualism would somehow contribute to the oneness and unity of our society.
Hanging the language upon the hook of co-governance, which in turn is based upon a spurious notion of Treaty "partnership" will fail to achieve the aims. In the long run it will bastardize the language--as is happening now. Maori is so full of neologisms that it is becoming increasingly swamped by a phonetic tsunami of English transliterations or clumsy verbal manufactures for English equivalents. Consequently its ability to preserve and transmit Maori culture is being lost.
If Maori language is worth preserving at all--and it is--it would be to preserve and keep alive Maori culture, history, and tradition (shorn of the evil of course--which is true of every language reflecting pagan roots and beliefs). But, that requires that the Maori language be intensely Maori! not a bastardized polygot of verbal confusion in a foolish attempt to modernise the language and make it quasi-universal. Above all we need Maori poets and writers steeped in the beauties of their own language who can also write powerfully and fluently in Maori, and who can teach Maori literature and arts to Maori.
We also need these cultural icons to write in English so that we can all be enriched by Maori culture and made the better for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment