Relation-thinking opposes monolingual totality through multilingual speech

Evidence

“Live in seclusion or open up to the other”: this was supposedly the only alternative for any population demanding the right to speak its own language. It is how inherited premises of centuries-old dornination were given legitimacy. Either you speak a language that is “universal,” or on its way to being so, and pal’ticipate in the life of the world; or else you retreat into your particular idiom-quite unfit for sharing-in which case you eut yourself off fl’orn the world to wallow alone and sterile in your so-called identity. — Édouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 533 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: The seclusion-or-universality dichotomy legitimizes linguistic domination — Édouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 533; Leaving key emotion-words untranslated resists monolingual Western hegemony over meaning; Convivial relations can build deep understanding without assuming full translatability — Farhan Samanani, Conviviality and its others: for a…, 53 (+2 more)

Related

• The seclusion-or-universality dichotomy legitimizes linguistic domination (similarity 0.88)
• A language’s supposed intangible unity is an outmoded principle, not a reality (similarity 0.84)
• Total linguistic multiplicity, not selective loyalty, justifies defending all languages (similarity 0.83)
• Intertextuality requires prior linguistic autonomy rather than fusion (similarity 0.83)
• Defending any language requires defending all linguistic multiplicity. (similarity 0.83)
• Languages have no inherent mission or essence. (similarity 0.81)
• A language stays rich only through risking contact with other cultures (similarity 0.81)
• Language extinction is driven by power’s consensus between profits and controls (similarity 0.80)
• One defends a threatened language for world diversity, not only personal identity. (similarity 0.80)
• Speaking one’s own language makes a people’s worldview concrete and visible (similarity 0.80)
• Any single lingua franca is necessarily unpoetic (similarity 0.79)
• Pidgin languages embody Relation negatively by belonging to no single tradition (similarity 0.79)
• Languages entering relation must first control their own specificities (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Leaving key emotion-words untranslated resists monolingual Western hegemony over meaning #exemplifies (0.85)
• The seclusion-or-universality dichotomy legitimizes linguistic domination #complicates (0.82) — Édouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 533
• Using a lingua franca does not erode the speakers’ own cultural identity #corroborates (0.80)
• Convivial relations can build deep understanding without assuming full translatability #corroborates (0.78) — Farhan Samanani, Conviviality and its others, 53
• Intertextuality requires prior linguistic autonomy rather than fusion #complicates (0.75) — Édouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 620