Last week, I had the opportunity to watch Toni Morrison's 1993 Nobel Prize Lecture. Toni Morrison, a prolific author known for her thought-provoking integrity and exploration of themes related to redemption, has made a significant impact through her storytelling abilities. She has skillfully illuminated the complexities experienced by marginalized and oppressed communities, with a particular focus on Black individuals.
In her lecture, Morrison delves into the importance of language and our narrative capabilities, using the parable of the bird to exemplify her points. In this parable, a person stands before a blind woman and poses the question, "Old woman, I hold in my hand a bird. Tell me whether it is living or dead." When she initially doesn't respond, the question is repeated: "Is the bird I am holding living or dead?" Her silence fills the space, as she cannot see the person or the bird in their hand. When she finally responds, she says, "I don't know. I don't know whether the bird you are holding is dead or alive, but what I do know is that it is in your hands. It is in your hands."
Initially, I found this message puzzling. I considered that if the bird were dead, the person either killed it themselves or found it in that state. Ironically, despite her perceived disadvantage due to her blindness, they are the ones who bear the responsibility, as the bird is physically and figuratively in their hands. This situation illustrates that holding power and dominance does not necessarily equate to embracing agency and responsibility. She highlights the unfortunate reality of authority figures who perpetuate prejudice when confronted with others.
Upon further reflection, I realized that this parable also reflects how language can serve both to empower and deceive, contingent upon underlying motives. Additionally, when pondering the question "Is it living or dead," I began to consider whether this might symbolize a broader apocalyptic language crisis. Are we currently witnessing an inevitable decline in the power of language, only salvageable through our collective willpower? I wondered what "dead language" might encompass: Is it the physical decay of flowery, Shakespearean-like language? Or does it refer to the emergence of new dialects and slang, particularly favored by younger generations, which may be viewed disparagingly by some? Is it indicative of linguistic laziness, imprecision, or the proliferation of filler words? Could it even be seen as a form of rhetorical violence? If I understand Morrison's view’s correctly, I would argue that language, rather than being in a state of decline or decay, is dynamically evolving in response to cultural shifts, resulting in a transformation that may blur the boundaries between what some might label as linguistic "junk" and potential harm.
Comments