QUESTION: Nowadays we see that the language we use in our public sphere, whether it is by political leaders or religious leaders, seems to be arrogant, offensive and annoying. Is it because of our negligence of the other?  Do we have a way out? – Joseph Joy

ANSWER: Saji Mathew Kanayankal CST

Your quest concerning the use of language in our daily life especially in the public sphere is a matter of serious concern today and we had many provocative impacts of it recently. The nasty spits in social media and verbal violence in the name of religion or politics create a lot of confusion, intolerance and hatred in society. The language of slander, defamation and contempt of the destructive arrogant powers manipulates the emotions of people and bring them into conflict. It is evident that language plays a decisive role in our perceptions and dealings and one’s expression corresponds to his/her attitudes, world-views and particular behaviours. It has an irreversible impact on people with whom we are related. The language used by the officials of an organisation or country is easily perceived as the mind of the entire community. In modern times, apart from speech, various kinds of media are used to express ideas and most of them are very powerful. The influence of new social media platforms and digital communications are more influential than many traditional ways of communication. Even some silent pictures or photos or pieces of poetry can communicate symbolically its message and people can grasp and interpret it when it appears in a media. Language is the media that unites people and enhances them. Similarly, it can also be used to divide people and create polarisation.

A Tool of Self-Manifestation and Encounter
Primarily, language is an expression of a person. As a phenomenological reality, it expresses one’s personhood and reveals the inner being in a comprehensive way. No language or speech comes out apart from personal involvement. Every pronounced word comes from the innermost being of a person, revealing the innate facet, and thus it expresses the essence of the one who speaks. The outspoken language expresses one’s character as well. From the moment of pronunciation, it moves towards an actualisation. Thus, the language becomes effective at a certain moment; what one perceives becomes part of the thought; what is thought is spoken, and what is spoken is actualised. Once we comprehend our intentional relation to the world around us, it is articulated through language.
On the other hand, language opens one to the other. As Emmanuel Levinas says language becomes meaningful only in the presence of the other. In the absence of the other, language is meaningless. It has always external roots because language can be considered as language only if it is used for communication with the other, and it contains not only messages sent to the other but also other itself. From this perspective, language becomes meaningful and effective in the ‘face of the other’. Therefore, in using language we confront the question of the otherness of the other. More precisely, while using language one tries to answer the question of how does s/he consider the other or who is the other as an existential reality?
While using contempt language we fail to respect the other as a person and we objectify the other as a thing. In a broader look, ‘the other’ is not limited to a person alone, rather it can be the people who follow a different faith, language, value system etc. By objectifying the other, s/he is placed away from one’s peripheries by placing him/her as an opponent who hinders the journey of one’s self-actualisation. Here one fails to respect the differences between me and him and categorises people under different banners like religion, ethnicity, nationality, culture, tradition etc. They try to eliminate all sorts of differences and consciously aim at a kind of uniformity, destroying the uniqueness and identity of the other. The beauty and richness of diversity may not be accepted with an open heart. The other is considered as an alien, a person outside from the stream of one’s journey. When people are separated in any banner, we create ghettos in society. Instead of building up a harmonious coexistence, here language is used to create hatred, division and hostility.
We do experience this sort of divisive language of intolerance by self-centred leaders who do merely look for power and their adherents may use it as a weapon to destroy ‘the other.’ When one has power and authority it is easy to marginalise ‘the other’ as an alien. In the present world, language is thus used to separate and divide people dishonestly. To influence the common people and snatch the power, filthy language is used as an easy weapon. When authenticity degenerates, one may use any sort of defective method to exploit the people and to strengthen themselves. As Pope Francis in Fratelli Tutti points out, radical individualism is a virus that is extremely difficult to eliminate, for it is clever. The use of deformative language is a product of such individualism, a psychological gymnastic to protect one’s self-absorbed egoistic pride. When some serious issues are to be confronted, it is easy to evade the situation within a short span by creating a common enemy more clumsily with provocative language. They also use the infamous Goebbelsian tactics to authenticate their falsehood and to swell the ‘illusion of truth.’

Authenticity and the Presence of the Other
Rather than objectifying the other, through language one should enter into him/her as another person. In this view, the other is conceived as another person, another I, another locus from which the world comes into view. While entering into the other, I enter into a world, which is not mine, rather of the other. Entering or opening to the other is not merely an external act like ‘seeing’ or ‘watching’ something like I see a piece of land or watch a house. It is not like the bread that I eat or the landscape I contemplate. Rather, it is an encounter with the other, a confrontation of my being with the being of the other. The ‘alterity’ is thereby reabsorbed into my own identity as a person. In Levinas terminology, it is a ‘metaphysical desire’ for the other. It is not a mere wish or desire for any material object like land or food or cloth. Rather it is something from the internal being, as a desire for goodness, without which the person may not be happy nor be satisfied.
This encounter becomes an inevitable necessity for an authentic person. In this process, one can realise the temporality between me and the other. It is a movement from self-absorption and egoistic pride. It transcends the petty narcissism, crossing all cultural and historical barriers, and listens and attunes the other by making an interpersonal encounter by which the limitation of self is opened to the other, caring and welcoming them and thus evades the externalities or materiality. It is a healthy and authentic attitude towards the other, expanding and enriching the self. In a true encounter, one should learn the art of touching the other pole, expanding the heart and embracing the other without hesitation and prejudices. Here the other is accepted with all differences and diversities and his/her uniqueness and specificities are respected and valued. By this encounter, one embraces the other with his/her totality and this totality would be fulfilled while the person ceased to be a person. This is an entering point into eternity that is beyond temporality. It is the real soul of fraternity.
Though the encounter with the other is a multifaceted complex experience and multiplicities of persons may come on the way, at a time this encounter takes place only with one person. It is an encounter with only one person at a time. In the words of Levinas, ‘at a time I encounter with another other, a single person, the other I, it is a ‘face to face’ experience.’ The other is a human face, not a mere physical or aesthetic object. The face overflows all images and it precisely exceptionally presents self by self. It is a living experience of another person, the other, his/her presence is exposed to me, and the other expresses himself/herself to me. I cannot reduce the other as something, the existence and experience of the other is an undeniable reality, and the other cannot be reduced to the idea of my head, or my imagination. The face is exposed to me and I experience the otherness of the other in a concrete reality through various ways, like speech, gesture, action etc., and thus the other becomes a presence not something abstract, rather a presence with entire reality and with all vulnerabilities and possibilities. The face simply speaks and it speaks to me the entire story which invites me for a response. It thus invites me to enter into a relationship with the other. The other should become a part of my experience and I experience the other both socially and ethically. As an authentic person, I cannot simply ignore the other or be indifferent towards him/her. But I should feel indignant, challenged before his in his existence, the reality with which I face.
When one tries to live authentically, this encounter with the otherness of the other comes as a problem because there are no identical beings in society. One may experience asymmetries rather than identities and similarities. Here we have the question of real fraternity which could be experienced through the proximity of the other. Fraternity is nothing but accepting the other in his or her totality. Here s/he is not seen as an enemy that steals my life but as the one who is really in need of me. This vision would further enrich my relationship with the other, not as another entity but as part of my being. It simply opens my horizons into a broader milieu, where without differences of friends and foes, all may come together and join the musing of fraternity. Pope Francis calls it a “culture of encounter” which is capable of transcending our differences and divisions. He uses the example of the polyhedron to explain it. The image of a polyhedron can represent a society where differences coexist, complementing, enriching and reciprocally illuminating one another, even amid disagreements and reservations. Here the language one uses will be that of mutual respect and acceptance. The objectification and hatred will pave the way for love, peace, friendship and harmony. One will be able to accept all heterogeneities with an open heart and instead of seeing the other as an enemy, we would learn the art of embracing the other in his/her totality. Peace and justice will be realised only when the asymmetries and opponents are accepted and comprehended in a wider frame. As Dostoevsky dreamt in Brothers Karamazov, it is the moment of experiencing peace and justice and musing of differences and discrepancies. Friends and foes do exist in the same harmony and the lamb lies down with the lion and the victim rise up and embraces his murderer. A moment when everyone suddenly understands what it has all been about. All the religions of the world are built on this longing.