Benjamins Ontology of Language - Essay Example

29 Mar. 2008 BENJAMIN'S ONTOLOGY OF LANGUAGE Walter Benjamin, a German philosopher and critic, was one of the most formidable and influential scholars of the twentieth century, in spite of the fact that he left behind many unfinished pieces of work. His works ranged over various inter-related fields like language, literature, the arts, society and technology. In American countries, he was renowned for his literary and cultural criticism whereas his political, philosophical and religious essays were in the limelight in the European countries. Critics were in a mostly unanimous agreement about his intellectuality and intuitive, keen mind. One can infer from the writings of Benjamin, the idea of language from his point of view. Language was perceived as one of the forms of communication and the idea represented by that language was in no way identifiable with the language itself. To make it simpler, language was considered to be just a medium of communication. It was not a stand-alone system of knowledge as such, but rather a set of symbols that aid in representation of reality. A language was needed to possess inherent meaning. Language, then, became an entity, which existed only if it had a function, in his point of view. One arguable point here was the cases where there were possibilities that a language with grammar, syntax and vocabulary could exist without the function of a desire to communicate. Computer generated poetry and languages were the instances; the question arises whether they can be taken under Benjamin's definition of language without the function of communication or creativity. Computer languages had the requisite grammar, syntax and vocabulary and they were used as a set of instructions that were seemingly understood by the computer. Here, there is the case where a live, organic mind communicates with a non-organic entity. Further, the non-organic entity, besides being capable of understanding, was also able to generate the language understandable by an organic entity. Thus, the computer, which was just a box, was able to generate language to communicate. Computers can also communicate with each other, which had been made possible through the advancements in technology. This led to the case where two non-organic entities were able to communicate. In such cases, the meaning and the language were separable. There is also the instance where an organic entity is capable of generating a language without the purpose of communication. It is the uncommunicative language of a mentally ill person. Even though Benjamin clearly stated that language and what was described using a language were not identifiable, it also remained that he believed that language always should communicate something. If something was made, it should have a function and a meaning. If not, it really cannot exist. While considering the circumstance where one language did not make any sense to a person who does not know that language, the purpose of the language to communicate was lost. The language, even though possessed a grammar, syntax and vocabulary, did not mean anything to that person except being conceived as incoherent noise. Language in such cases negotiated with meaninglessness. Benjamin's idea of language extended to include inanimate objects such as lamps too. His idea of language of such objects was their linguistic being, but it was man who could name something other than him. In this context, man was the only entity that possessed the universal language. Thus, man's linguistic being was to name things. But, a language as such did not end with just naming. It was a tool that enabled creation and possession but it in itself was not so. Benjamin finally resorted to the theological ideas such as that of God being the true possessor and so on to arrive at the higher function of language. Many also conceived theology as a means of escape opted by Benjamin when he was not able to go beyond a certain limit about his conception of such mystical thoughts. In one of his works, "On Language as Such and the Languages of Man", Benjamin's theological approach was vivid. The theory of language given gave ontological priority to the 'creative word of God'. It had been emphasized that God created things and hence, the theological aspect extends to things too. According to him, the problem with the human language is not the inability to express the abstract, metaphysical and non-sensuous but the lack of materialism. To quote Benjamin's own example, the word 'lamp' communicated just the word lamp and not the thing lamp. The gap between the thing and the name was of importance here. Also, the same lamp can be given different names in different languages. As a result, the multiplicity and the confusion that resulted due to much linguistics were inevitable. Thus, as time progressed, language continued to be undergoing decay due to various interpretations and translations. The human word then began to have a fragmented and mediated relationship to things. (W. Benjamin, "On Language as Such and on the Language of Man", in Reflections (pp. 314-332)) The seemingly eccentric statement that things communicate, that was given by Benjamin led to the explanation of the task of translation. Those people who were ignorant of the language of things required the task of translation. The theological aspect, much favored by Benjamin also showed its head here in the form that the silent communication by the things was the responsibility of God. What Benjamin had in mind about translation was thus, obviously different from what we had perceived till now - that translation is what is required between different languages or between the cultures that use those languages as their means of communication. In this sense, languages became the tools to express different cultures and possibly different nations. Thus, the political aspect of translation came into existence. But such was not the perceived idea by the philosopher under discussion. He stated that the translation did not take place between nations and cultures and their languages but within the language itself. Moreover, the languages under consideration were not the languages of human beings but those of the fields in which his essays were written - literature, the arts, society and technology. So, he perceived a language not by common origin but by practice and that translation was what occurred between human language and thing language. By blatantly ignoring the nationalistic and culturalistic approach to translation and languages, what Benjamin had done was a bold political statement. His main points of reference were materials and God. He had thought beyond the superficial and had brought out the question of how really a human being related himself to the world he lived in. The languages involved in the translation were - the language of things, which inherently contained the residue of the word of God and the language of human beings, which involved the naming of things and the names were the forms in which the former silent language had been vocalized. Based on the recent debates, the translation took place between two spheres - power and force or, more technically, potestas and potentia. That is, the language of things was full of potential to be exploited and the language of human beings can either exploit this potential or become a tool of force. Now the meaning of politics according to him - the play of politics is when the translation between the language of things and the language of human beings is deliberately misunderstood. So, he wanted the human kind to take a step to properly exploit the potential held by the language of things and start listening to its silence. So, translation was which did not actually mask the language of things but rather amplified its potential. Thus, the form of translation gained power in his point of view rather than the content. The form of translation decided how the human beings related to the world and how it, in turn, affected the world he lived in. One instance where the potential of things was clear was the documentary form, which was made up of named things, but at the same time was able to communicate to the human world with snatches of human language in it. The potential was open to those who wanted to either explore it or use it as a tool of force. The theological view of Benjamin about the language of things being mute magic of God seemed to be poetic and impractical, but proved to be a masterpiece in philosophical thoughts. Benjamin viewed modernity in terms of the things it left behind. Each and every 'thing' was viewed by him as fossil that contained potential of its own, a piece from the past that was capable of flashing a knowledge how things would have been if it had been exploited some how else or if it had not been present at all. Going through the trash of modernity later would reveal things that had hidden powers, which were constantly exchanged between other things, of course using their silent language. Several modes of translation can affect the true meaning conveyed by a documentary. Recently, documentary form went beyond the demarcation of nationality and culture, once again justifying a new view of language of things. It was recognized wherever it was applicable, in the sense that, wherever it was a reality. Thus, it succeeded in creating a public sphere around the globe - a common language through which people around the world can communicate without politics being a part of it and also with the potential of things, as predicted by Benjamin. Thus, things were not just passive and inert objects. They were containers of mysterious energies of the past, which could be communicated through the language of things. Such a concept seems to be about magic and supernatural powers. Benjamin proposed that the language of things, thus, could become productive too. As in everything, this led to a negative side of the concept too. This was named to be 'conjuration' by him. Benjamin was also intellectual enough to foresee this dark side. This power of conjuration can enable a person to tap forces into things, which were a result of lack of reflection into the task and also "without any interruption from the inexpressive". (W. Benjamin, "The Task of the Translator", in Illuminations (pp. 69-82)) The instance of a documentary and a public sphere as above opened the doors to the exploration of a new arena - the arts. In "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", Benjamin began his views about the perception of art. Art, in any form, involved three stages - production, distribution and reception. Political perception played an important role in all these three stages. Art, like photography, film, painting, sculpture etc., required the audience to establish a physical proximity. Every 'thing', which is the result of an artwork, had an aura about itself and this aura is what necessitated the physical proximity. Another requirement was contemplation, that is, the abstract entity whose magnitude is proportional to the interest shown in the artwork. Both the above factors contributed to the acknowledgement of 'cult value' of an artwork. These factors were those that were responsible for an artist in his special relationship with his own piece of work and also for his elevated status as a genius. Due to its cult value, an artwork was viewed upon as an entity with value in itself and was not, in all cases, available to whoever wished to perceive it. The philosopher distinguished the traditional artwork from the modern artworks such as films, digital images, and sound recordings etc. through the concept of aura and cult value. The processes of production and distribution were different in the modern world. The technological advancements led to the correction and editing of the original and had then been conceived as a part of production process. That is, what was called 'original' was the piece after such a production process. Moreover, there came the facility of making several indistinguishable copies of the original. Even though such copies were indistinguishable from the original, Benjamin stated that they were robbed of their aura and cult value because of the fact that the artwork lost its uniqueness. Not only the technological advancements were construed as a reason for this but also the demographics. The availability of one piece did not sit well with the increasing masses and they strived to at least have a connection with the copy if not with the original itself. Hence, such artworks, having been robbed of cult value, could only possess 'exhibition value', according to him. But, these artworks started building an aura of their own. Captions were given to exhibit the meaning. Soon, the captions became more explicit and more imperative. The artworks were able to lay claim to an inflexible context as a result. The art of filmmaking can be either image based or narrative based. The narrative based technique gave freedom of interpretation to the audience. Those filmmakers who made such films and those critics who reviewed such films to have contextual significance were named to be 'ultra reactionary'. Benjamin stated that the making of copies removed the aura of the film but enabled the artwork to be filmed at various times to various people a various locations. When a live performance was being filmed, fragmentation takes place in the sense that the audience was denied the chance of experiencing the reality of a real live performance. The actor, when performing to the audience directly, can know the reactions of the audience. He can gauge the expectations and alter his performance accordingly. In case of a film, the audience were forced to look through a 'one way glass' since the actor just performed in front of the camera without any true notion or means to know the audience's reaction. This led to a shift to the concept of subjectivity. The key difference highlighted by Benjamin between the traditional artwork like an easel painting and the transformed artwork like a film was that the former was viewed in an environment that promoted concentration whereas the latter was viewed in an atmosphere that promoted distraction. When viewing a film, the observer did not have a chance of viewing it alone whereas in case of the traditional artwork he had enough time for contemplation and appreciation of the cult aura. The environment of distraction also contributed to the observer's state of vulnerability and hence may provoke him to take the process of distribution into his own hands. So, what Benjamin almost reproved of transformed artwork is that the fragmentation, the loss of cult value, the loss of means to contemplate and finally, the loss of a means to interpret the language of the artwork as a thing. He proposed a means to retain the cult value and this means involved the audience. He wanted the audience to look for "creativity and genius, eternal value and mystery". (W. Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" in Illuminations (pp. 217-252)) Thus, the 'ontology of language', as perceived by the German philosopher Benjamin, was explained. Language, as perceived by Benjamin, was explored. The relationship between language of human beings and language of things was outlined. The result of this relationship, the political and ethical implications of the different interpretations of the relationship and the process of translation of the silence of the thing language into the required meaning being construed as part of politics by Benjamin was explained. Finally, his views regarding the changes in the processes involved in making an artwork, perceiving it, his proposals to human kind to understand its connection with the world and the stunning thoughts of the great philosopher were all highlighted. WORKS CITED W. Benjamin, "On Language as Such and on the Language of Man", Reflections pp. 314-332. W. Benjamin, "The Task of the Translator", Illuminations pp. 69-82. W. Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction", Illuminations pp. 217-252 Read More