The Power of Language

When Claude Levi-Strauss ventured into the Amazon and encountered the Nambikwara tribe, he commented on how the tribe leader pretended to know writing. He stated “I could not help admiring their chief’s genius in instantly recognizing that writing could increase his authority, thus grasping the basis of the institution without knowing how to use it.” (1283) He went on further to explain that language, in itself, is a tool of power. Civilizations that possess it are able, he believes, to use it as “artificial memory” and store their past while moving forward to a more concrete, informed future.

Levi-Strauss also states that “the primary function of written communication is to facilitate slavery.” (1282) “The fight against illiteracy is therefore connected with an increase in governmental authority over the citizens. Everyone must be able to read, so that the government can say: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” (1283) Although I agree with him that writing has been used to facilitate slavery, I do not believe that the possession of it is what enables that slavery. If we look at slavery in the Americas we can see that it was illiteracy that allowed slave owners to hold power over the enslaved and that the threat of literacy is what possessed the slave owners to avoid teaching reading and writing at all costs. Today this idea still holds true, as the lack of information is what allows people of power to make decisions without the interference of a complacent public. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.”

Aside from this disagreement in theory, however, Levi-Strauss made one strong point that is in agreement with Ferdinand De Saussure: Writing is a tool that enables us to communicate and translate the world and events which surround us. What Saussure sought to do, however, was analyze exactly how this tool works and through analysis create a science out of language, which he called “semiology.” “Semiology would show what constitutes signs, what laws govern them.” (Saussure 851) The people of Levi-Strauss’s Nambikwara tribe, along with vast amounts of other civilizations, acknowledged what Saussure was trying to distinguish in his teachings: that writing and “sound-images” are used to make tangible the world around us.

This course has been focusing on the theories that are attached to literature, however, yet none have addressed until this week’s readings the actual science of language and literature. All of our studies are focused around the application of language in either a creative or theoretical form, yet we have yet to determine how this tool is actually used to communicate ideas. Referring back to our studies of psychoanalysis and formalism, this week’s readings break down further how language is applied and try to create scientific systems to interpret exactly how we use language, not only in just Saussure’s ideas of linguistics, but also in Northrop Frye’s analysis of how archetypes have been used throughout the ages to communicate ongoing themes of human concerns. Roland Barthes work focuses more on a formalist perspective of allowing the text to communicate to the reader what it will, regardless of authorial influence.

How do these readings translate into Frankenstein? There are different angles we can take to look at how these different theories apply to the text. The easiest and probably most obvious is looking for archetypes within Shelley’s writing. Here is a simple website that provides a list of common archetypes: http://www.listology.com/list/character-archetypes . I think it would be fun to see if any of these apply to Frankenstein while also taking into consideration the statements on behalf of Frye in part III of his work on page 1310.

Another question I would propose is how did the Creature use language to affirm the world around him?

I am co-facilitating this week and I look forward to what we may come up with. See you Wednesday.