F is for Fluency

One of the ideas I like to play with is an analogy, borrowed originally from George Lindbeck: religion as language. If a religion is like a language – if learning to speak Christian is like learning to speak English – all kinds of interesting possibilities appear about how we might understand religion. One of them is that knowing your religion really well, or being really competent in it, is like being fluent in a language.

Fluency has all kinds of aspects, as anyone who has ever tried to learn a language will know. (And I don’t really, although at various times I’ve tried quite hard – I’m terrible at languages.) There’s vocabulary. There’s grammar. There’s the surrounding culture – knowing when to speak at all, for example. There are the adjustments in vocabulary and grammar for different situations, and often different ways of looking at the world. If you speak a language which distinguishes between formal and informal pronouns, for example, you have build a mental filter which sorts situations with reference to which is appropriate.

Compare someone learning a new language to someone learning a new religion. Some people will be happy with a few words picked up for fun, or enough to get by as a tourist – going to a wedding in a tradition not your own might be an occasion when you need a little of another religion in this way, for example. Some will learn a language in detail without ever really using it; it’s possible, if unusual, to study the Bible and know Christianity well without ever participating in a Christian community. It’s more common to have some grounding in a religion and then change later on (in this analogy ‘atheist’ or ‘secular’ can also be thought of as a language). As I have discussed in a previous post about belonging, it’s also possible to belong to more than one religion at once – and the image of religion as a language gives us an obvious analogy for this, being bilingual, something which is not provided by many other ways of discussing religion.

It can give us insights into the ways in which religion changes and yet is preserved – this is the focus of Lindbeck’s use of the analogy. He thinks of a language in a Wittgensteinian model, seeing that meaning is use, and focuses on the community which preserves the language or the religion. Just as English can change over time and in response to new circumstances and inventions (consider, among others, ‘mouse’, ‘gay’, and, for a religiously themed example, ‘icon’), so Christianity can change. Just as in English, fluent speakers have an instinct for what is grammatical and what is new, even in new uses of words (a new verb is still a verb), fluent Christians will know what is an acceptable development and what is not. In fact, Lindbeck is worried that without enough fluent users, religion might change beyond recognition, just as a language dies without speakers. If we share that worry, it would be worth asking: how do we train people to be fluent in our religion, whether that’s Christianity or another tradition? Can the language analogy help us to find better ways of teaching religion, as well as helping us to understand it better?

Advertisements

5 responses to “F is for Fluency

  1. Thanks for this, which is a very fruitful way of understanding. Concerns about a loss of fluency may be particularly relevant for British Quakers, as a relatively small ‘language group’ that has neglected to teach the language to new arrivals for many years. The result has been that a wide range of other langauges have come to dominate Quaker communities, with only a very minimal vocabulary of a few ‘Quakerese’ words remaining.

    • Yes, I think this is extremely relevant for us. As you know, I’m a bit more hopeful because I think that our ways of incorporating terms from other languages are still distinctively ours (think of the way English can put its own grammar onto loan-words from other languages), but I do also think that we need to be clear about teaching both Quaker terminology and grammar.

  2. very intelligent and well presented. I think people are better off looking at language, realizing what is ‘sayable’ in the sense Wittgenstein meant — what can be said that makes sense, in other words, than filling their heads with passed-down-for(yawn)-generations ‘religious teachings.’

  3. Hi again, I’ve written a more developed response to this post at: http://transitionquaker.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/quakerism-as-second-language.html
    In Friendship, Craig

  4. Pingback: G is for Grammar | Brigid, Fox, and Buddha

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s