critical-realism message, RE: BHA: Epistemological relativism, human rights, culture

Just a few points. Marko seems to be using "social construction" as something close to fictitious. I never said language is a social construction, but I also don't see social constructions as fictitious. IMHO, social constructions are material and almost never exist without institutions, physical structures, practices, etc.

As for language, it's one material practice. To say that language distinguishes humans from other animals is to ignore all other distinctly human characteristics. It's also to ignore those animals that have the rudiments of language.

The cognitive revolution, if I understand it correctly, is simply based on the notion that the capacity for language is innate. To make a leap from here to saying it's the one thing that distinguishes humans from other species is illogical. Other animals may have similar, if less developed, capacities, and humans may have other relatively unique capacities. It seems to me that to maintain that language is what defines humans as humans, one would have to show that only humans have a capacity for language and that it's the only thing that is uniquely human.

Human language is historical, at least if we allow for humanity being more than about 10,000 years old. Writing did not come into being until about 10,000 years ago, and then it took about another 5,000 years for the first alphabets to appear. My understanding of the literature on prehistoric humans (i.e., prior to c.10,000 years ago) is that their use of language evolved over time. If we follow Engels and others (this is not my area, but I believe there are people working in this field that maintain that) language evolved as human practices (coordinated hunting, kinship systems, etc.) evolved.

At a more general level, it seems to me distinctly undialectical to look for any one fixed characteristic and claim that it alone defines a species. All species evolve, and humans are distinct from other animals in the sense that humans have history. Other species evolve, but this takes place at the pace of biological evolution. Humans evolve, but change is more rapid because human societies evolve historically. E.g., if we looked at the hunting practices of, say, lions 400 years ago, we'd see essentially the same patterns as we see today; if we look at the practices humans used for their material survival 400 years ago, we'd see radically different practices from today. Biologically, we see evolutionary changes corresponding to this accelerated time scale: compare the average height of people even 200 years ago with average heights today. Therefore, if one were to maintain that language is the one transhistorical constant in human existence -- contrary to other traits which we know have evolved -- the burden of proof would seem to fall on the one making such claims.

Marsh Feldman

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Marko Beljac
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:48 AM
To: bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: BHA: Epistemological relativism, human rights, culture

I just want to make some quick comments on this reply to my previous post. My reply is in bold black text. Given the time down under my comments may appear to be a bit rushed and arbitrary.

On the Discovery Channel I once saw a special on elephants. Apparently they have at least 37 separate "words" they use to communicate with each other.

On the discovery channel I once saw a special on UFO's. Apparently they have been visiting us for 50 years, it started at Roswell and some of them hang out at area 51. Doesn't make it true cause it was on TV.

I also think the whole emphasis on language has some rather large holes.

1. There are a host of other things that only humans do: fly airplanes, invest in the stock market, play sports, build cities, etc.

I agree. But I fail to see how this punches a hole in my original claim, let alone a large one!

2. Many distinctly human characteristics, including language, are geo-historical. They are not invariant human characteristics.

We have two claims here. One theoretical, the other empirical. It is claimed that language is a social construction, something which does not arise as a result of an innate species endowment. This claim can be assesed via the usual methods of scientific inquiry, and have been for the past 50 years in the so called cognitive revolution, through work on generative and universal grammar for instance. Of course one may dismiss this via a philosophical critique of the scientific method but I fail to see what this has to do with a "realist philosophy of science". The empirical claim is that there has existed a time and place were humans have lived in the complete absence of language. If thats the case what is the time and place?

3. Some people are deaf and dumb and illiterate. Language for them may not mean the same thing as it does for people who can hear and speak. Yet most of us would not even consider saying people who don't hear, speak, and read are not human. There's something else that we base this judgment on.

illiterate people can talk. Deaf people "speak" sign language, and all sign language is grammatical and consistent with lingusitic theory. True, some people dont speak but this is tied in with point 4.

4. Up to a certain age, human children do not communicate via language. Again, this doesn't make them inhuman.

The human language faculty unfolds as a result of a maturational process, like puberty. Nothing paradoxical here, and certainly no hole.

5. Young children and others communicate with non-linguistic means. To my mind, this demotes language per se as the medium for communication while simultaneously promoting other species to the status of communicative animals.

Language and communication are different issues. To say that animals "communicate" as with humans is only to assert that we are animals. Like animals eat, and so do we. Language is a means of human communication which no other animal has, but that we communicate through non lingustic means is not denied nor is to make a premier league ranking system.

Judging by Mervyn's remarks previously I do not think that Bhaskar would claim that the human language faculty is a social construction or geo-historical. If he does, he is in trouble!