Linguistic Diversity Cohesion and Power

The 3 year old girl pointed at the fire truck. “Fie-er lesher, Fie-er lesher” she shouted excitedly in yiddish. 

The little girl was my mother. She had recently arrived in San Francisco from Shanghai, where she was born to yiddish speaking parents who narrowly escaped the Nazis in World War 2.  

“She should not speak in yiddish! She must speak English” her parents were told angrily!

It is wrong to prevent migrants from speaking their native languages. I believe this, despite my view that migrants must learn the language of their new country (if they can, some people find it quite difficult). It is hard for people to be united or even really get along if they can’t talk to each other. In fact, the first time the Torah mentions linguistic diversity is in the story of the Tower of Babel. We are told that people speaking one language makes their society strong, but if they speak different languages it will weaken them (1). However, being able to communicate in the language of one’s new country can be achieved without restraining migrants from speaking their native languages. 

This approach is not without risks. The easiest way to learn a language is to practice it and be immersed in it. There are parts of Australia that have high concentrations of people who speak languages other than English. In these areas, migrants can get by without properly learning the language of the land. Research has shown that being surrounded by signs in foreign languages caused significant discomfort to older Anglo-saxon residents in one of these areas (2). These risks should be addressed and mitigated rather than going to the extreme and trying to stamp out other languages from our shared spaces. 

Preserving native languages is important for two reasons:  one is self-expression and the other is power. 

Educator Ronit Baras introduced me to the idea of “language of the heart”. As I understand it, the language we speak as children enables us to express ourselves most effectively, especially when trying to articulate what is in our hearts. Languages learned later operate on a more technical level. We can express what we think effectively in a second language, but it can be hard to express how we feel. Assuming that this is true for many migrants, it would be a terrible imposition to restrict them from using their own language most of the time. 

The second argument relates to power. Because our ability to express our feelings is impeded when we are forced to use a second language, we are therefore not as powerful in negotiating everyday situations when speaking that language. I noticed that intuitively as a teenager when dealing with a particularly harsh teacher (who died from COVID last year). This teacher had a sharp tongue and could pack a powerful verbal punch in his native Yiddish, which was my first language. To change the power dynamic between us, I always addressed him in English rather than in Yiddish. It really threw him. The best he could do when I told him I thought I was  a nice guy was to tell me in a thick accent “you not, nice guy, you nice garbage”. That is a bit harsh, but nothing compared to what he could deliver in Yiddish! 

 

The relationship between power and language can explain a peculiar phrase in the story of Esther. The context is a king wishing to subdue women under the control of men. The royal edict stated that every man will be a ruler in his home, and [in the case where husband and wife speak different languages, the husband and therefore his wife] will speak in the language of his [the husband’s] nation (3). There we have it, suppression of linguistic diversity to serve male domination, with the loss of the right to speak one’s native language is clearly linked to a loss of power.  

The Torah urges us not to mistreat the stranger (4). Allowing them to speak in their native language is one way to adhere to this commandment. 

Notes

1. Genesis 11:6-9

2. Wise, A, (2004) Contact Zones: Experiences of cultural diversity and rapid neighbourhood change among Anglo-Celtic and long term elderly residents in Ashfield. Centre for Research on Social Inclusion, Macquarie University

3. Esther 1:22

4. Leviticus 19:33

 

The SCREAM! Sodom, Australia & Gib'ah – degrees of similarity re: treatment of “Strangers”. Vayera

A wind of national assertiveness is blowing, Angela Merkel declares that Multiculturalism has failed in Germany, Marco  Rubio, a rising star in the US “Tea Party” asserts “American Exceptionalism” and in Australia there is resistance to ending the imprisonment of 738 children who are imprisoned for arriving here as part of “Irregular people movement”.

Australia has positives too regarding diversity. I declare an interest, the diversity education organization that I lead as National Director has recently received a grant of over one Million dollars from the Commonwealth Government to foster respect for diversity. But, regardless of my interests, the evidence is in for both sides of the argument, with a WA farmer named Mr. Cox speaking plainly and beautifully about his having no problem with refugees moving in next to his farm[1] and wandering on to his property, at the same time as the arguments for throwing our visitors in the slammer continue.    

How do 3 societies compare, ours, Sodom's and the macabre story of an ancient Israelite town called Givea.  The most striking parallel has been averted, at least for now,  with the fortunate failure to implement the proposed policy of the alternative government of Australia of Automatic jail terms for Australians harbouring Illegal immigrants [2].  In all three cases, there are failures of hospitality, what are parallels and the significant differences.

Case 1- Sodom.

Exhibit A. The SCREAM!

The people of Sodom were cruel to visitors as a deterrence policy to protect their wealth from the rabble of other nations. Instead of detention centres, they had other ways to scream em away.   Locals approached by a poor traveller for money would write their name on their coin before giving it to the visitor, a strict policy declared that no one was to sell or give food to the visitor. Eventually, the visitor would starve to death, the Sodomites would then collect their money. One girl felt compassion for a particular visitor and broke the law, she smuggled food to him in a water jug on the way to the well. When she was caught, she was covered in honey and tied up on a roof, bees stung her and she screamed in agony[3].

Her scream is offered as one meaning of God's statement. “I will go down and see if, like her scream, they have done”[4].

Exhibit B. The Mob and the bystanders.

One newcomer to Sodom, a very wealthy migrant named Lot dared to defy the inhospitable custom and invited 3 guest to his home. It was soon surrounded by a mob who demanded that the men be handed over to be “so that we will know them” in a biblical sense of the word “know”. Lot offers his two daughters to the mob but they reject the offer. While not all of Sodom could possibly fit around the house of Lot, the fact that no one protested against this behaviour is considered as if  they all personally surrounded the house[5]. 

Case 2 Gib'ah

Inhospitable city, a migrant, an accomplice, a mob and bystanders again.

A Levite, a beautiful woman who is sort of the wife of the Levite man (his Pilegesh- Concubine[6]”) and a servant arrive  in the ancient Israelite town of Gib'ah in the tribal land of Benjamin. He is not invited by any of the locals, and seems set to spend the night in the street. Again, a migrant  an old man from Mt. Efrayim (a different tribe to the local Banjaminites) returning from work invites the travellers into his home. They are enjoying themselves, when a mob surrounded the house, knocking on the door, seeking “knowledge” of the man visiting.

Gang Rape, the macabre reaction and catastrophic aftermath 

The old man offered his daughter and the visiting lady, instead of the male guest. The mob is not keen, but the Levite grabs his “concubine” and takes her out the door to the mob. They gang raped her and did other “humiliating” things to her all night and sent her off at day break. She dies soon after. The story ends with the Master/husband cutting the dead woman's body up into 12 parts, sends it to the 12 tribes of Israel, makes a stirring speech telling a selective account of the outrage of Gib'ah, the criminals and the silent majority of Benajminites and sparks a civil war where tens of   thousands die.

Comparing Sodom and Gib'ah.

One factor that is worse about Sodom in comparison to Gib'ah is that in Sodom it was a premeditated policy to “remove the feet (of travellers) from amongst them”, however in Gib'ah it was simply lust[7]. Another difference was that in Sodom the Government established anti-traveller policies as law, in Gib'ah it was lawless men[8].

Case 3 - Australia

I will not canvass all the arguments, the statistics and facts and I acknowledge that these are important and worthy of serious consideration.  My purpose here is to raise questions about how these traditions can inform our moral thinking on a terrible situation. In spite of our welcoming many refugees here, in the case of boat people it seems that the two redeeming factors of Gib'ah are not at play. On the other hand, some of the gruesome torture described in relation to Sodom and the savagery  of Gib'ah are not part of the Australian situation and there is all the other complicated stuff to think about.  

Close

It is indeed a sad day when Government whose primary function is to protect the innocent as well as its citizens, fails in that responsibility. To what extent are all Australians complicit in this?

---

[1]    730 Report 19-10-2010

[2]   http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/labor-and-libs-key-election-policies/story-e6frg12c-12259083510

[3]    Talmud, Sanhedrin.

[4]    Genesis 18:21.

[5]    Sifsei Chachamim 3 on Genesis 19:4.

[6]    The text refers to the Levite as both her husband and Master. It was an irregular form of marriage.

[7]    Ramban, on Genesis 19:8

[8]    Implied by Ramban, more explicit in another source, that is not handy at the moment.