Ludwig Wittgenstein’s theory of language games has been enormously influential in Philosophy and Religious Studies, but its implications are quite radical. Dr. Orton explores how the theory can help anthropologists and folklorists – whether or not they choose to accept Wittgenstein’s more drastic assertions!
For A Level Philosophy and Religious Studies students, this is an overview of one of the most important topics you will need for your exams. For university-level scholars or independent researchers, we’ve included clickable links to useful literature and canonical scholarship you need to be acquainted with to get started.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Language Games
In his Tractatus, Ludwig Wittgenstein argued that the traditional problems of philosophy were actually the problems of language. We could dissolve (rather than solve) these problems by constructing the appropriate logical language.
Wittgenstein initially argued for the picture theory of language, in which language is a kind of pictorial representation of the world. We often rearrange the pictorial elements in ways that do not accurately represent what is there.
However, in his Philosophical Investigations he rejected this idea and proposed language game theory. When someone learns the language of a particular subject, says Wittgenstein, they are learning the rules of a game.
This means that words do not have a single, universal meaning, but depend on context. We cannot ask the absolute meaning of any word, but rather its meaning in use.
“Consider for example,” says Wittgenstein, “the proceedings that we call “games.” I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all?…look and see whether there is anything common to all. - For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that.”
Wittgenstein’s point is that there are relationships and similarities in the characteristics we associate with different words. These similarities are family resemblances: we might identify members of the same human family by common characteristics – the size of the nose, the shape of the mouth, hair and eye colour. Each family member may not exhibit all the traits associated with his family, but he will have enough of them to allow us to recognize that he belongs to it.
In the same way, one referent of a word may have some, but not all, of the characteristics that other referents of the same word share – and that is enough for us to identify them as such. We cannot go outside the game to discover the “real” meaning of words, because there is no single “real” meaning.
Dr. Orton presents at the indigenous-organised Karbi Winter Workshop, Diphu, Assam
Some scholars are frustrated with the obsession with language that dominated Philosophy during the twentieth century – and that continues to dominate it today. Ernest Gellner criticises the theory of language games by likening the obsession with meaning to those who are always sharpening their tools but never using them. Another point is that language games are circular, because we find the meaning of the word from the language game, but the language game derives its meaning from the words that make it up in.
Yet another objection is that language games do not reflect the nature of reality: they make it. This is quite a hard line, leading to what philosophers call “non-cognitivism”: the view that it is not appropriate to ask whether a sentence is objectively true or false. In that case, some people feel, what is the point of doing philosophy at all?
Finally, this view seems to propose a metaphysical doctrine that questions objective reality – a hard sell for many people. Is there a use for Wittgenstein’s theory for those of us who do believe in demonstrable facts?
Wittgenstein and the Vernacular Anthropologist
I am not a subscriber to the non-cognitivist view, but I do see a way that language game theory can be helpful in a practical sense. I’ve written before about how I use the approach of vernacular theorising in my anthropological fieldwork and academic papers, which involves listening closely to what people say, rather than theorising about them without their collaboration.
I’ve also written about the problems with looking for an essentialist definition of religion, which requires there to be one or a set of characteristic(s) that all religions have in common. Wittgenstein’s theory is one solution to that problem, although I ultimately argue that we should defer to local people when asking what religion means to members of a particular community.
Indigenous people at the Karbi Youth Festival, Assam
In cases in which scholars do need to make generalisations, language game theory might be able to help to do this ethically. For example, speaking of ‘indigenous religions’ has caused problems with governments’ and scholars’ ability to deal ethically with groups who identify as such.
The UN definition of ‘indigenous’ is limited, as it refers to historically continuous residence in a territory. This is not appropriate in the South Asian context, where many self-identifying indigenous groups in South Asia are acknowledged to have migrated to their current homes from elsewhere.
Whereas the Indian government takes into account cultural specificity rather than historical geographical location when designating adivasi status, the government in Bangladesh does not. Kawser Ahmed points out that Bangladesh was among 11 states which abstained in the voting on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, on the grounds that Bangladesh’s “indigenous peoples” have not been defined or identified in clear terms and that that the term “was not applicable to her since the entire population had been living on the land for the past several millennia, making everyone indigenous to the land…On another occasion, Bangladesh has stated that the entire 120 million population of Bangladesh are all indigenous.”
Prashanta Tripura points out that ‘adibashi’ is widely taken to be synonymous with ‘indigenous peoples’ in Bangladesh and has been recently interpreted as meaning ‘original inhabitant.’ This, Tripura argues, has led to the further marginalisation of self-identifying indigenous groups. Government ministers have claimed on multiple occasions that there are no indigenous people living in Bangladesh, or that Bengalis are the true adibashis, not the “tribals” who, according to then Foreign Minister Dipu Moni, were actually immigrants from a few centuries ago.
These remarks have drawn criticism from community leaders. Sanjeev Drong, Secretary General of the Bangladesh Forum for the Indigenous People pointed to the ILO Convention (169), Article 1, which lists self-identification as indigenous or tribal as a fundamental criterion for determining indigeneity.
Indigenous Village of Datnekhali, Bangladesh
Either way, the insistence that there must be an essential characteristic included in the definition of ‘indigenous’ had led to further side-lining of an already marginalised group. In terms of anthropological and ethnographic research, my preference is for site-specific, contextually sensitive scholarship that respects the particularities of each group (click the link to listen to my talk about listening to differences within and between communities in the Sundarbans).
However, some scholars point out the need for categories that reflect commonalities. Bjørn Ola Tafjord recollects being challenged by indigenous students on the undergraduate course he was teaching. Speaking of Talamancan society in Costa Rica, Tafjord had initially proposed that the idea of an “indigenous religion” had been introduced by missionaries and state agents, including academics.
Tafjord was trying to be respectful to the community by deconstructing colonial assumptions about Talamancan society, but his students pointed out that this was upsetting to other indigenous people, “inadvertently disputing what some of them understood as essential features not only of their own local identity and family history but also of the global family of indigenous peoples that they identified or sympathised with.”
It’s clear that there are problems with essentialist definitions of the word ‘indigenous’, particularly those that insist on historically continuous residence in a territory. Yet in other instances, it is helpful to use the term in a way that draws commonalities between self-identified indigenous groups. Perhaps a Wittgenstein-style approach to terms like this, which uses similarities and resemblances rather than looking for an essentialist definition, is best placed to handle the debate.
This doesn’t mean we have to accept that there is no reality beyond our words – or that we need to spend all our time fussing about the use of language rather than doing productive research. It does allow us to be flexible with our use of important terminology, ensuring that the meaning of words is defined by the people who use them – not by scholars at their writing-desks or government departments in faraway cities.
For A Level Students
We offer one-on-one online A Level tuition in Anthropology, Philosophy and Religious Studies. Your tutor has undergraduate and research degrees in these subjects as well as teaching and exam-marking experience. Click the link to read testimonials from our previous students and contact us to find out more!
Find Out More:
To learn more about Dr. Orton’s research into anthropology and religion, visit Our Research Page to listen to her lectures. Click the links to read our blog series on Research Methods, Anthropology and Religious Studies.
We also offer adult interest courses in Philosophy, Religious Studies and Anthropology. These courses are templates of possible routes of study and can be combined, adapted, or designed from scratch to suit your interests and goals. Dr. Orton will work with you to design a course of private tutorials tailored to your needs, ability and schedule – whether you are undertaking your own research for an independent project, writing a book or simply have a personal interest. Click the link to find out what it’s like to work with her.
Undertake Your Own Research Project in Philosophy, Anthropology and Religious Studies
Working on your own independent research project needn’t be a lonely task: Dr. Orton works with other independent scholars on projects in conservation and the humanities. Contact us for a chat with her.
Reach Out
Follow us on Orton Academy Instagram to see pictures from Dr. Orton’s fieldwork in the Himalayas and the Sundarbans – we would love to connect with you!
Commenti