The text below is chiefly the transcription of the audio, so feel free to use the format you prefer - reading or listening. We’ll be back with the regular episodes in September! ** In this episode, I want to think with you about language, and its role in what we think matters, in which ways. In the past months, I have studied and read on the topic a bit, albeit more as a curious reader than a strict scholar. In the episode, I will draw on a few authors that I encourage you to look into further – one who has already been a guest on the podcast - Philippe van Parijs - , and several whose work I greatly admire – who knows if they might come on as guests in future! Several of you may be aware of the book “Seeing like a state” by James C. Scott – if not, I highly recommend it. It was published in 1998, and I feel like many of its ideas are resurfacing in different shapes today. The book begins with the sentence, “Certain forms of knowledge and control require a narrowing of vision” – a statement that he unpacks at length throughout the book, showing that perhaps yes, this narrowing of vision may be needed in a few contexts, but it essential to be aware of its harmful consequences, and to therefore limit the moments and extents to which this narrowing of vision is applied when perceiving, acting, and organizing in the world. One of the cases Scott draws from at the very beginning is that of “Scientific Forestry” in early modern Europe, and the precise measurement – and subsequent management - of German forests, so that they could more securely and efficiently provide domestic wood supply. As Scott recounts, only after the second rotation of – in this case conifers, for which that rotation lasts about 80 years - had been planted did the consequences of mono-cultural forest management become clear: the trees had inadequate nutrition and grew weakly, and it was extremely hard – but necessary, at least to a minimum – to recreate the diversity that had been destroyed previously. Interestingly, the last sentence of this very book states (in the context of seeking institutions that can better accommodate a mix of “scientific” and “practical” knowledge) that, “Finally, that most characteristic of human institutions, language, in the best model: a structure of meaning and continuity that is never still and ever open to improvisations of all its speakers.” And indeed, language is a powerful example here, it is indeed highly adaptable and dependent on much practical and interactive knowledge, while also incorporating some (flexible) rules. Yet, I am now immediately reminded of the just published book “How to Kill a Language” by Sophia Smith Galer, that discusses the devastating loss of languages the world is experiencing. It reminds me of Scott’s forest, in fact: in seeking communicability across all contexts, and choosing to celebrate a few, or even a single language for that purpose, we are losing much more than individual words. Smith Galer describes the loss of languages, and the various processes through which language diversity if being lost, often silently but nevertheless by design, as in the case of empire building, or other political processes of seeking power. Often, the justification is also given as part of a seeking exactly the kind of efficiency that Scott emphasises cannot be the main driver of action in any context: if everyone would speak the same language, we’d all be able to communicate more efficiently, wouldn’t that be great! Well, it may be useful to add a so-called “lingua franca”, but the diversity lost if this were the only language, is devastating. Among other things, we lose the memories that we associate with certain people or places in our lives, who we spoke with in certain ways with, or where we spoke in a given language. There are also expressions that only exist in some languages, and not others, and they reflect cultural practices and experiences, and often a place’s history. As Robin Wall Kimmerer also shows in “Braiding Sweetgrass”, language can also have a bearing on how we relate to the subjects and objects of our speech – indeed the words “subject” and “object” are already telling. In the language Wall Kimmerer focuses on, the use of verbs is much more important – a mountain may be mountaining, for instance. This changes our perception of who we see, and how fixed we see them, what our relationship with them is, and what it can be. E. C. H. Keskitalo, in the book “Rethinking Nature Relations. Beyond Binaries”, highlights this by looking more deeply at the words and categories used for distinguishing nature, and problematises “the fact that signs or classifications, having been produced for the use of specific groups, may also say more about the desires of these groups than about the reality, to start with.” Keskitalo’s book goes into much detail on the clash between the English and Anglo development being transposed to the Fennoscandian context, and what that has done both in terms of language and space – very much as intertwined processes. Indeed, if you look at neuroscience, you can see a lot of impact of the simple act of translating pre-language thought and action into any language at all – you can find out more on that in Iain McGilchrist’s work. And our previous guest Philippe van Parijs has spoken on the issue of linguistic justice, using examples from the Belgian context, and has written on the necessity for Englishization, despite it being a problematic process – you can find his chapter alongside several interesting ones in the book “The Englishization of Higher Education in Europe” edited by Wilkinson and Gabriëls. References to all the books mentioned are included below this text. All this to say not only that language matters to the question of the human and more-than-human relationships that we explore in this podcast, and to how planning specifically might deal with this. I’d also like to highlight that we are currently living through a socio-political time that pushes for Englishization and simplification in education and several other contexts, including planning practice. First, on Englishization: I would agree that this is an important process for mutual learning, inclusion, and for broadening understanding. This podcast itself is in English for those reasons… though I’ve thought about going multilingual with short English summaries- if you have thoughts on that please leave a comment. But Englishization should not go at the cost of entirely losing connection with the diversity brought in by other languages. Perhaps English could shift, as Scott suggests languages can do, to become more attuned to necessary developments including in the relation between humans and more-than-humans. Yet English cannot and should not do everything – we need language diversity. And, I would say, we do also need language complexity. Not to the same extent in every context, but the call for simplification of all kinds of complex ideas, from privacy regulations to sociological theories or simply a research idea - I believe this needs very careful consideration. This is the second language theme I wanted to highlight for the podcast. What consequences does it have when complex ideas are recounted only in simpler words? It is one thing to be able to recount an essence in simple words so that an audience with less expertise in that particular field can understand – be it at a broadly-themed conference or in an elevator. It is another if the simple words are the only ones used anymore – perhaps a different kind of language loss. Indeed, there are contexts in which simplifying the terminology of rules and regulations, for example, could return much needed “discretion” or interpretability to people, giving them a higher degree of action potential and a sense of meaning for their lives – I am currently reading Hartmut Rosa’s book on this topic, and it is quite fascinating. So far, the book is only available in German, as far as I know, titled “Situation und Konstellation. Vom Verschwinden des Spielraums”. Yet sometimes I wonder if a few people are deciding to give all other people – let alone other species! – very little credit indeed as to what they might be able and willing to understand. You might look into James Bridle’s “Ways of Being” for that. We might be surprised what might be done with it, if complex information were shared, understood, and subsequently acted on! Perhaps it is necessary to apply Scott’s view on the narrow applicability of narrowed views to language, as well. To close, the recording shares a sound I recorded recently in the gardens of the Romantic Museum of Porto, Portugal. If you listen closely, you can hear the grass swaying in the wind, you hear birds, the wind itself blowing into the microphone at one point, a faint chattering of people nearby. Perhaps you’ll hear more than that. You might think of all that we do not hear in such an environment, the ants and other tiny insects busily moving through the space. The distant water of the Douro River and the Atlantic Ocean can also be seen but not heard at this point. These are the sounds of spring in this part of the world, where people find themselves attracted to green spaces, looking for shade, beauty, fresh air, community – and indeed, quite obviously, it is not only people, who seek those aspects. And the languages present – be they human or otherwise. Perhaps this spring and summer you might go find spaces like this near where you are, look for those sounds, and the associated smells, views, presences, and what they tell you, as if they all were communicating in languages. What do you understand, and what do you think they understand from your communication? Thank you for listening, and see you in September! Feel free to also use the time until then to listen to previous episo
