Who are the Primordialists?

Since primordialism is a vague and non-rational `attachment' rooted in sentiment and other poorly defined and difficult to quantify notions, it is also perhaps difficult, or even dangerous, to identify or label groups that would seem to exemplify primordialism par excellence. This despite the need for examples from language loyal groups that have already been identified, such as those given by Geertz. Some groups, however, do stand out, and seem even proud to be noted for their intense attachment to their language. The Tamils are one of these, and by some measures, perhaps among the strongest; the Japanese are another, and the French are not far behind. I have dealt with various expressions of what might be called primordialism par excellence in my 1996 book; in addition to the Tamils, Japanese and French, I cite passages written about Arabic and Navajo.Here are quotes that assert strong evaluations of the special characteristics of the languages in question, especially their first-order characteristics, in particular, how the languages originated, or how they came to assert their dominance over others:

On Arabic:

Muslims consider the Koran to be holy scripture only in the original Arabic of its revelation. The Koran, while it may be translated, is only ritually valid in Arabic. This is connected with the notion of Arabic as a ``sacred language". Language itself is sacred, because of its miraculous power to communicate and to externalize thought. In this sense, language is essentially the same as the Divine power of creation. In order to create, God speaks a Word in the Spirit; similarly, man externalizes what is within his mind by formulating words with the breath, by giving breath ``form" in sound. The power of words to transmit to another consciousness the knowledge of the speaker lies in the fact that true words are themselves what they mean, or were at their origin; they are the object itself in sound. (Glassé 1989:46).

Thanks to the relationship of words to their roots, as if to a supraformal archetype, a deeper and more universal sense often superimposes itself upon a particular meaning in a phrase in classical Arabic. Simple statements, which are the rule in the Koran, open, under the right conditions of receptivity, into astonishing and vast horizons; the world is reduced to ripples in consciousness. These and other qualities make Arabic an imcomparable medium for dialogue between man and God in prayer (Glassé 1989:47).

On Japanese:

For modern Japan, the Japanese language is a way of life, and the enormous amount of speculation, writing, and talking about it that goes on at every level of Japanese life constitutes an entirely distinctive and marvelously self-contained way of looking at life.

In modern Japan, the Japanese language is never allowed to be taken for granted, not by anyone, not for a single moment. ...The language not only serves the society as a vehicle for daily communication, but it also manages, ...to be a cult and myth as well. ...To the Japanese today, the Japanese language is not simply the way they talk and write. For them, it has assumed the dimensions of a national myth of vast proportions (Miller 1982:4-5).

On Navajo:

To the Navajo, man can think only with symbols, so some symbols must have existed before thought. The first few sentences of the first paragraph of the emergence myth read: ``The one that is called `water everywhere'. The one that is called `black earth'. The one that is called `first language.' ...These phrases are significant in that they indicate that in the beginning were the word and the thing, the symbol and the object. ...Symbol is word, and word is the means by which substance is organized and transformed. Both substance and symbol are primordial, for in the beginning were the word and the element, the symbol and the symbolized. (Witherspoon 1977:46)

For the Navajo the world was actually created or organized by means of language. The form of the world was first conceived in thought, and then this form was projected onto primordial unordered substance through the compulsive power of speech and song. (ibid. 1977:47).

What then might be the metric by which we measure primordialism? If it exists, how is it manifested? Are there varying degrees of primordialism? If it is gradient, what is the grading scale? As Johnson and Lakoff point out, however, things that are not quantifiable, such as sentiments (love is their prime example) are almost always described in metaphorical terms: love is a physical force (akin to electromagnetism or gravity), a patient (especially a mad one), or it is magic, or war. Even the supposedly measurable one (physical force) however, is not, in the case of love, described in terms of MHz or G's, and the others are described only in terms of further metaphoric devices (Johnson and Lakoff 1980:49).

Given the well-known reluctance, nay inability of the social sciences to quantify primordialism, or even to touch it with a ten-foot pole, do the linguistic primordialists themselves have ways to assess it? Since the social scientists consider it impossible, should it not also be an impossible task for the the culture bearers themselves? The answer is no; the primordial bond is ineffable, it is not to be quantified, but this is in fact its special allure. It can, in fact be qualified, i.e. qualities can be ascribed to it, and various expressions of it can be assessed. What can be measured is the level of devotion to the object of their admiration, and primordial linguistic cultures come readily equipped with ways to measure it.

Though many cultures refer to the native language as the `mother tongue' (an appelation that may have originated in France during the French Revolution) the Tamils also have the notion of tamir taay (`Tamil as mother') who is pure, virginal, immutable, quasi-divine; she gives us life, nourishes us with her milk; we must protect her with our lives if need be:

...Tamilttay ...the apotheosis of the language as goddess, queen, mother, and maiden. Indeed in the discourses of Tamil's devotees, there is ready slippage between tamil; Tamilttay; taypal, `mother's milk'; tay, `mother' and taymoli, `mother tongue,' all of which over time come to be synonymous with each other. (Ramaswamy 1997:17).

But we (the outside observers) do not measure her primordial qualities; they are to be measured by the devotion of her devotees, because the strength of her qualities is seen in the strength of devotion she inspires. Even this can only properly be measured by a culture bearer, an insider to the linguistic culture. Only an insider can tell if the devotee is pure in his/her devotion, and pure in his/her service to the language. If his/her heart is pure, Tamilttay will speak to him/her, and s/he will speak a pure Tamil as well.