The Language of elites

[hallenrm]

I have often felt that the language used by pundits (hindu priests) during religious ceremonies is beyond the understanding of people who are sponsoring the event. Still they repeat the mantras like a parrot during the ceremony. The mantras are said to be in Sanskrit (an ancient indian language) and hence presumably the language of vedas-- the scriptures held in high esteem by many. This way the pundits maintain their status in the society (pundits are invariably Brahmins, the highest caste among all castes in Hindu religion).

I believe that the same holds true for most societies, only the language used is different, it may be Latin somewhere, Greek or Mandarin elsewhere. ????

I have experienced a similar feeling while attending lectures of learned professors of science and technology.

I understand that to reach a certain level of competency, it takes years of hard work and study.

But, doesn't this fact point to elitism. A method to keep the common person out of the elite club.

I am ; can you help?

[InfiniteNow]

Hey Charlie,

Interesting observation. My perception of it is a bit different though. There are times when you just have to know certain things to understand the greater context of what the speaker is saying. While I may be mistaken, I really do not feel it is some intentional method of excluding people. However, this definitely might be true for some.

It's easiest to think about it in terms of math. If you are discussing differential calculus to a large group, you have to just take it as granted that they will at the very least know some basic algebra. Now, Einstein did say that even the most complex theory should be explainable to a child, and I agree completely, but there are times when you're discussing some really "heady" stuff and you just can't. Many folks who are brilliant theorists may not be the best oraters...

We are certainly social creatures, and do form cliques and groups excluding some and including others, but this occurs on more of an individual level and is just more noticable when taken in aggregate (everyone together). "Hey, they're like me..." times 1,000.

Communication between two individuals is often difficult. Even you and I may struggle to understand one another from time to time. Wrap your head around that point, then magnify it to the number of people attending one of these lectures or ceremonies or whatever, and the disconnect seems more clear.

So, as you can see, I am not very succinct, but my point is that while sometimes there is intentionality and a motivation of exclusion behind the chosen words of the speaker, more often it's just a normal communicative barrier you are witnessing.

If I'm going to attend a lecture at some university in Greece, I shouldn't get mad at the lecturer because he's speaking Greek and I haven't taken the time to learn it.


Cheers.

[Buffy]

I agree with Charlie. While there are obvious needs for very specific terms sometimes (Now's Calculus), or cultural idioms (Inuit's multitude of terms for snow), so much of human communication is all about creating groups that support each other and maintain cohesiveness by excluding those outside the group. It shows up in religion (Latin vs. vernacular), politics (politics of personal destruction), and various social groups and disciplines ("Quentin Tarantino's ouvre is the dialectical dissemblance of Peckinpahian overwroughtness").

Seriously, the trick to navigating personal interactions in life is realizing its really just like high school: very few people ever "grow up."

Cliquishly,
Buffy

[hallenrm]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Seriously, the trick to navigating personal interactions in life is realizing its really just like high school: very few people ever "grow up."

Cliquishly,
Buffy

Well said Buffy!

Don't you agree that is the source of social diversity and most social problems.

Can we ever hope to optimize it? If yes, which direction do we move?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by hallenrm

Can we ever hope to optimize it? If yes, which direction do we move?

Oh, its self-optimized: Social Darwinism at work, ya know. I kinda like diversity: ecologists will tell you its necessary to maintain a healthy gene pool.

In thinking about the title of this thread though, its important to note that this phenomenon is not just applicable to "the elites": another good example of this phenomenon is the fad for "Don't Snitch" and the whole glorification of gangs in ghetto culture. Its not just a slogan on a t-shirt or music ("Martin Scorsese, zero. Three 6 Mafia, one." as Jon Stewart said), its a real undercurrent of "don't cooperate with the cops" that infects virtually everyone, but has become an issue in places like Oakland because even hard-core community activists are starting to blame it (i.e. the community itself rather than "outside oppression") for the huge increase in lawlessness over the last few years.

Cheers,
Buffy

[Tormod]

Saken er todelt. På den ene siden er det snakk om elitisering eller fremmedgjøring, for eksempel for å skjule "sannheten" - gjerne i religion - eller for å gjøre det utilgjengelig for andre - for eksempel gjøre noe bevisst vanskelig for nybegynnere og dermed stenge dem ute.

På den andre siden handler det om det Buffy snakker om - sosialisering og stammespråk. Det er naturlig at folk, som sosiale vesener, utvikler egne ord og uttrykk og på den måten danner et eget "språk", for eksempel innenfor sin egen fagkrets eller sin spesielle idrett.

Men er det elitisering når man bare *snakker* et annet språk? Jeg tror hensikten er viktigere enn språkvalget.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Tormod (translated--sorta)

The thing is bifurcated. On the ene afterwards is it chat about elitisering or fremmedgjøring , for instance to blot out " the true " certainly in religion or to make the inaccessible for other for instance be doing something aware arduous for beginners and with that closure them out. Across shop at facts about facts Buffers speak about sosialisering and stammespråk. It is the artless that people , as social the manner , develop own mere words and expression and on the course builds a own " languages ", for instance inside her own curriculum or her special athletics. But is it elitisering as they only * chatting * a different languages? I believing intention am significant than språkvalget.

Heck, even translated to English, I can never understand you T...

Kvetching,
Buffy

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Heck, even translated to English, I can never understand you T...

Kvetching,
Buffy

See, it's because *I'm* among the elite and you're, uhm, not.

[GAHD]

0# */34#, 3|_373/v355 !5 84[)

But don't worry, not everyone can see there is more than one box for people to live in. I think that eliteism is more because other languages don't have the words to explain cartain concepts simply and efficiently. If it takes one language 3 words to say something, and another a full 3 paragraphs, the people who speak language A will simply more readilly understand that particular concept.

Not much you can do about it, except to invent new words a la Shakespear, or steal other languages' words like english does. Even then, only the elites that take the time to learn those new words will readilly understand it, and using that word out side of that particular elite group would be faux-pas.

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by GAHD

...I think that elite-ism is more because other languages don't have the words to explain cartain concepts simply and efficiently...

Patois.
Arcane jargon.
Argot and slang.
People generally do not adopt jargon to be elite, or to exclude others.
Okay, street slang is often exclusionary, which is ironic.
The patois of Louis XVI's court was definitely exclusionary.
But working slang serves a heavy and critical purpose. You have only limited time to convey many complex ideas. Time is money. Engineering. Time is life. Military.
It's the difference between a pedigreed Afghan Hound and a good hunting dog.
The hunting dog is not trying to prove he's better than you. Neither is his owner. They are trying to put food on the table.
If you are going to limit yourself to the "standard" 4,000 word vocabulary of the average Joe, there are going to be LOTS of things that you cannot explain, or will never have time to explain.

Ergo, argot.