LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MYDENTITY1?

DEBAPRASAD BANDYOPADHYAY
And all these problems of identity, as we so foolishly say nowadays.
Derrida2

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

0. PROLOGUE : I CANNOT
WITHOUT SUBJECTIVITY

DO

I was standing in the midst of the tiniest piece of land in between Nepal
and India. The area is no-ones land. It is nones territoryno nation[al]
flag could be hoisted here. It is the vanishing point of jurisprudence,
where international law supposedly prevails.
I was searching for linguistically movement-prone zones -- where there
had been a need/demand/desire for monolingual state. How did people
identify themselves with their language? I, as though a watchdog, had
been there surveying and my report would be sent to the proper authority.
I am albeit confused having been unable to find the enumerated boundary
of monolingual state anywhere in India. Even some people had cut a
sorry figure to name their own language.
Rather I have seen the barefoot pilgrims journeya pilgrims
progress. They communicated with each other, but surprisingly enough,
they maintained their languages without using any expensive speed
capitalist instruments. The question of identification of language as
communication is more important rather than providing a name of a
language. This pluriligualism needs no money. I associated such
experiences with Gandhis Hind Swaraj as I found such instances in that
seminal book.
However, monolingual nation is shaped according to the capitalocentric model of European monolingual state, one that requires investment
of capital , manifested through money-sign, for sustaining the total
paradigm of linguistic nation state the desire of having monolingual
state is a mirror image of the dominant paradigm.
However, the pronouncement, I CANNOT DO WITHOUT
SUBJECTIVITY cannot escape the trap of universal truth-claims...

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

1. PROBLEM OF MY-NESS
This paper is not on I-dentity or I-ness, but on my-dentity or my-ness,
i.e., what I possesses or what (being) belonged to memy ownership,
endowment, possessed-ness or rather entitlement or in other word, private
property. Following navyanaiyayika 3 term, one may call this category as
svatva. Thus this paper is a psychoanalytic shift from the individual ego to
the possession of ego as imagined and symbolized within certain domain
or order.
This paper starts with two problematic questions:

Does I possess something or is it something imposed

upon me as my I-dentity or as my own by following certain
rules of socio-cultural or politico-economic legitimacy?

As a homo sapiens, if I accept my supposed genetic

endowment, do I have something as my own ? Do I have my
ownership of four Ls: Land, Language, labour and Love in the
context or locus of this planet or universe ?
The first question is more general and the second one concentrates on
the questions of ownership of language associated with the supposed geopolitical boundary of linguistic nation state. This small paper would only
deal with the problem of land and language, e.g., so-called mother-tongue
and imagined nation statist boundary.

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

2. METHOD
Methodologically speaking, this paper follows the arguments of one
15th Century philosopher, a navyanaiyayika, Kana (visually impaired)
Raghunatha Siromoni, to elaborate the issue of my-ness or svatva vis
a vis otherness or paratva, though this postulation of such binary is to
serve the strategic reason of writing a supposed scientific paper as binary
relationship does not always work even within the anthropocentric limits
of perceptions. Those n-nary possibilities are ignored for the time being or
it is being deferred to avoid the intricacies of non/extra-algorithmic nature
of supposed human mind.
The paper is organized in a dialogic form to intricate the purvapaksa
or Opponents (henceforth O) arguments and there is a Stalker (henceforth
S), who is chasing the opponent.
The relevant question is: why does the author of this paper de-sign this
paper in this manner? It is again a case of following an age-old
methodological tool, which was once deployed both by the western and
eastern scholars to establish many emancipatory polylogues without any
deployment of manipulative procedure.
In this connection, one can compare this theory of Habermasian
Communicative Competence with Nyaya theory on modes of debating or
"Katha" (speech, discussion) 4. Matilal had already discussed in detail the
family resemblance between Greek and Indian method of "Dialectic" or
method of disputation. I have already attempted to set it within the
Habermasian critical theory. 5

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

3. OWNERSHIP OF LANGUAGE
S: I is a signifier, given by the other. What I endows or owns is
something pre-givensomething presupposed, a historical a priori, an
anthropocentric construct, e.g., the proper name imposed upon me by the
other, the state or family or the kowm etc. The whole gamut of supposed
symbolic order is transmitted by the other. The name of my language and
its stipulated boundaries are also provided by the othereither by my
supposed community or by the ideological state apparatuses. Therefore,
what do I own in the real order of things ?
O: In case of homo sapiens, s/he inherits something genetically, i.e.,
his or her genetic endowmentthats s/he owns. That is natural and real,
e.g., Internalized Language (IL)all human beings possess.
S: How do you know that IL reallyan object out there, with your
anthropocentric limits of perception? Secondly, if that Language
Acquisition Device (LAD) exists really, how does it determine the Identity of Homo sapiens?
O: Yes, I admit that anthropocentric limit, however I am talking about
the path of positional strategic objectivityI have to posit something as
an axiom, a postulatethe Cartesian transcendental cogito this special
quality of linguistic creativity separates human beings from other nonhumans.
S: LAD is also contaminated by the threat, violence etc. in a
competitive and regimented society with ruthless behavioral control. Here
the speaking subject is context-sensitive being-in-itself and S/he might be
striving for being-for itself. And I cannot speak my own language. Even I
could not talk without threat of the other.
O: You are suffering from persecutory paranoia!
S: You might be right about itit is a diagnosis following the dictums
of medical science. However, I now wish to talk about so called
Externalized Language (EL) and want to keep pending the issue of IL as I,
as an anthropos, would cut a sorry figure in distinguishing between IL
(supposed raw nature) and EL (supposed cooked culture)the semiotic
and the symbolic order or the genotext and the phenotext (Cf. Appendix

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

A) . Strategically speaking, I am now concentrating only on the symbolic

order of EL that enters into the imagined order of nation statist boundary.
O: There are so many jargons used in your enunciation without any
explanation. I, as a trained specialist in cognitive linguistics, do not
understand your language, especially technical termsall these are not
used in mainstream linguistics. However, you may proceed to explain the
problems of ownership. Let me question you in this regard by citing an
example: one contractor is legally entitled to chop off the trees of a certain
land to establish an eco-enemy industry, but the inhabitants of the forest
land resisted. What right did they have to resist?
S: Thats right question! Let us start from the question of land, after
that we would switch over to the problem of EL and its supposed geo/egopolitical boundary. Who are the owners of this earth or a piece of land in
the earth? Marxs answer is obvious:
From the standpoint of higher economic form of society, private
ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite
absurd as private ownership of one man by another. Even a
whole society, a nation, or simultaneously existing societies taken
together, are not the owners of the globe, its usufractuaries, and
like bona partes familias, they must hand it down to succeeding
generations in an improved condition. 6 (emphasis added).

The forest-dwellers were, in fact trying to hand the forest down to

successive generations in an improved condition.
7

O: Then whats about legal entitlement as proposed by Amartya Sen

?
An entitlement relation applied to ownership connects one set of
ownerships to another through certain rules of legitimacy. It is a
recursive relation and process of connecting is repeated.

S: Sen (ibid) then cited an example of private ownership from the

market economy and elaborated exchanges of commodity by using
money, which is mere a signifier that metaphysically equalizes the
unequals and I really do not know the sufficient and necessary conditions
behind such equation of exchange. Without questioning the stipulated
value ascribed to a currency note, Sen puts etc. at the beginning of the
exchange process. The origin of entitlement starts with etc., i.e. ityadi
(iti+adi, iti means the end of a process or a state or an event, on the

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

other hand adi means the origin) is put at the adi or origin. This is the
paradox of his framework as it leads to fallacy of infinite regress.
O: We must keep in mind the frame of axiomatic referenceit is the
market economy. If there is no presumption at the beginning, how could
we proceed to the next premises? You are begging the premise.
S: In the market economy, where we can exchange by means of a filthy
signifier called money even language and love can be exchanged by
means of such necessary evilmoney8 . If money were invested through
print as well as electronic capitalism, a language, as ascribed by the
capitalo-centric statist formula, would sustain or be considered as
endangered or dead.
O: Oh! That is mono-economic perspective. Everything is not
dependent on a silly economic argument
S: Yes, you are rightthats my point. I agree with you, but I am
seeking the very outsideoutside of the capitalo-centric economics to
identify myself. I have to attain that locus, where we can speak without
investment. In Bangla, there is an idiomatic expression, /kOthar dam/
price of speaking-- I do not wish to spend money to speak or to listen to
someone. That would be too expensive for me.
O: Then you could better build up a model.
S: My position is not to build up a framework of a theory or a model,
as I do not believe in the model theoretic approach9, but to act or to
perform a change on this money-mind. Let me explain my position by
citing Raghunatha. He introduced a new category svatva, which differs
from the earlier Smritisastra standpoint. According to smritisastra (the
constitution of imagined Hindu community), anything can be svatva, if it
can be viniyogayogya or fit for use and there are self-other differences in
case of possession of something. Raghunatha argues in his
Padarthatatvanirupanam (15 C A.D.)I am citing the translation of
Raghunathas text by Potter and Bhattacharya:
Another new category is possessedness (svatva).
Objection: That is nothing but being fit for use as one
wishes.
Answer: Not precisely, for one may use food belonging to
others.

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

Objector: One is not enjoined not to eat food belonging to
others.
Raghunatha: You see, you must already understand
possessedness in order understand such an injunction.
Possessedness is a property that belongs to people when they
receive gifts and that they lose when they give things away. 10

To summarize, svatva as a category does not depend on the exchange

value as ascribed by the market economy, therefore I am paraphrasing fit
for use (viniyogayogyata) as use value and it eradicates the self-other
differences in the context of my-ness.
O: Raghunatha had used a term gift or zakat. If ownership does not
exist, how could it be possible to give away something to other?
S: Objection justified. Zakat is important here as it not simple charity
for saving income taxit is gift without any return11this (un)conditional
gift is for the being-in-common, for the kowm, i.e., for the prosperity for
the dividual. However, the space is here importantfrom which locus
are you talking about the gift? In the market economy, the word gift
conveys different semantics in contrast with the vintage society, e.g.,
samprdana karaka or the theta-role of giving and receiving has a different
meaning in the context of Brahmin-dominated society, from which such
order of things emerges12. The grammatical order of things (metaspeaking on speaking) follows the non-discursive order of things. The
meta-speaking is arranged, appropriated, approximated and codified by the
order of non-discursivity. We have to understand politics of gift a la
Derrida in this regard in different symbolic orders of society.
O: I understand your position regarding land and commodity. Whats
about language then? Whats about my Mother Tongue (henceforth MT)?
S: In case of language also, the exchange of language, in the ideal form
of society, does not depend on the money. I am subscribing Ivan Illichs
position in this regard. He, in introduction to Pattnayaks book 13 , used the
term shadow play to describe the spontaneous educational procedure of
the mass without paying anything to teachers and thus not contributing
anything to GDP. This domain is the outsideoutside of governmentality.
Secondly, in case of MT, let us explore, from the perspectives of
different inter-disciplines, the genesis of the historical a priori, Mother
Tongue instigated by a sexist question, Why is it not Father Tongue?" It

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

at a time relates psychology of mother-child relation in specific social

milieu and its implications in psycholinguistics and history of the concept
in relation to the birth of nation-state. In India, the word mother has
been deployed in the realm of land and language and subsequently
proliferated in every sphere of discourses. Is it only due to the social
proximity of mother-child that gives birth to such notions and nations?
When the name of the Father" dominates the social sphere, and in many
cases, the Fathers tongue is childs tongue, why is the name of the
dominated mother nominated and affiliated to the objects like land and
language? This discussion on the MT inaugurates four distinct
issues:(a) The mother to other or breast-to-bottle switch-over [in case of
language death];(b) The proliferation of (M)other-tongue Industry aided
by professionals; (c) mother-child dyad in relation to language
acquisition(d) the artificial means for detaching the dyad by the
introduction of feeding bottle Industrya capitalo-centric paid industry.
I think, the switch over from breast to bottle has a larger implication in
understanding gestalt of "mothering" in its psycho-physiological
connotations or in its metaphoric senses as revealed in "mother land" and
"MT". The metaphor of "breast to bottle" switch over stimulates us to look
into the history of Industrialization in which the supposed "nature" is
defeated by the manufacturing of technological "culture".
This imaginative effort to feminize the "tongue" ends in vein as the
term "MT", since the term was first used, had never meant the vernacular,
but rather its contrary. The term was used by Catholic monks to designate
a particular language they used, instead of Latin, when they were
"speaking from the pulpit"14 .That is, the "holy mother of the Church "
introduced this term and it was inherited from the Christianity, thanks to
the effort made by foreign missionaries in the colonial period in India.
Illich15 aptly pointed out that the word "MT was introduced into Sanskrit
in the eighteenth century as a translation from English". It is not only a
derivative technical term, born out of translation, but it was also altered as
the Indian mother-cult had also an impact on this translation.
The total endeavor to relate mother-child with the language-acquisition
process is nothing but a fantasy as the biological mother has nothing to do
with the svatva of language-object per se in a given all pervading
patriarchal culture except to introduce substantial inputs to the child like
other associates of the child. The "MT" as a metaphor is a politicotheosophical construct that, later on, has become a technical term in the
discursive formation of administration and academics. Culture supplies us

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

notion; we then try to make notions notations and we neutralize that

symbol by deploying different "scientific" as well as "cultural" methods.
However, the symbolic order retains its symbolism.
O: Whats your position in case of fights for ones own language? I am
talking about language movement, where ones own linguistic human right
is justifiably demanded, i.e., svatva is established.
S: Under the hegemonic control of standard language within an
imagined nation state, the capital-incentive language-Industry is
proliferated by the introduction of electronic as well as print capitalism
with the help of ideological state apparatuses. If other captive varieties
(so-called dialect) the Speaking/Hearing Subjects (S/HS), revolt against
the central EL and withdraw their affiliation from the abstract umbrella of
the supposed monolingual nation state, the situation is observed as
language movement. This is a case of mutual resemblance or
anyonyopratibimba (I am taking cue from Samkhya darsana), where the
dominated is reflecting on the images of the dominator; the dominating
paradigm is followed and copiedall the state organs, ideological and
repressive state apparatuses, are repeated in a form of reverse mimicry. 16
Thus, here svatva is not established, but is manifested in a form of selfother exchanges and reflections.
Thus, in conclusion, I can pronounce:

I am entitled to have a language, my language.

When I am talking about my language, a category emergesit is myness rather than that of I-ness.
My internal linguistic entitlement (my-ness) lies in the fact of my
supposed pre-determined genetic endowment.
My external linguistic entitlement is like economic entitlement. It lies
in the fact of familial or statist endowment. My family and my nation-state
gives me this pre-constructed fact of having my language. i am entitled
to have it as an inherited private property.
i am entering into the symbolic order of my family and state, in turn,
they are giving the name of my language.
Thus, i cannot choose my own language.
Thus spoke Derrida17, Yes, I only have one language, yet it is not
mine.

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

Following the path of Nagarjuna, I may now switch over from svatva
(of baikhari, madhyama and pasyanti) to nihsvatva 18nothingness of
paravak 19.
O: If this is your position, I should resist you to conclude, because
linguist would lose his or her job if s/he chooses such nihilistic as well as
idealist and metaphysical position. So, my last question is: what should be
the praxiological goal of a linguist or what is the responsibility of a
linguist then? I am talking about the identity of a linguist
S: An ideal organic linguist/intellectual is always looking for
emancipation from the existing dominant paradigm, that disrupts the intersubjective relationship, though s/he knows that there is no emancipation is
possible, as every human being is like an Old Man in the Sea (as depicted
in Hemingways novel) or s/he is like cursed Sisyphus, an absurd creative
(wo) man living in the midst of proliferated death industry or morbidity
and solitude. S/he in spite of knowing that everything is not bad, but
dangerous, is continuing her creative work by not reproducing banal
propositions, but creating novel gazes just like a flaneur--spectator within
the crowd but at the same time is alienated from the crowd (i.e., the
I/eye of flaneur is not only a first person, it is also a third person). S/he
is a bricoleur (a la Levi-Strauss), who assembles miscellaneous and
divergent materials in contrast with typecast engineer, who works with a
well-defined machine or explanatory theory following a predetermined
blueprint of model. Bricoleur's work, then, falls outside the domain of
enlightened science and pure reason. S/he is waiting for Godo, after whose
appearance, her academico-administrative identity as linguist will cease to
be existeds/he would be no longer considered as a technical specialist in
linguistics, but as a thinker-(s)talker, searching for stipulated wis(h)dom in
different truth or false rooms. S/he is a propagator of plural future
(heterotopias or plural utopias) that tolerates different truth-rooms. Like
Spinoza, s/he is not bothered about her hierarchic position in academics
and prefers to be a spectacles-manufacturer; like Wittgenstein, s/he likes to
withdraw herself out from the sounds and fury of the ritualistic academic
seminars by covering her ears by both hands; like Diogenes, s/he could
refuse royal sponsorship by saying, Stand out of my light.
Her/his heterotopic proposals for building the tower of Babel as an art
of resistance are as follows:
Bhasa-smavaya (Co-operative of Ls): It is the (im)possible equality of
different ELs on the basis of social co-operation or Kropotkonian
horizontal mutual aid instead of vertical governmentality. Bhasa-samavaya

10

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

could not exist without socio-economic samavaya. This concept of bhasasamavaya can eliminate the drain of language 20.
Heteroglossia/n-glossia: Bhasa-samavaya leads to polyphonythe
celebration of many voices. It also leads to politics of tolerance
Anti-Grammar: Anti-Grammar is a by-product of sub-alterns noncollaborative attitude towards hegemonic role of standard language and its
prescriptive grammar. All the alternatives attempts developed by the
people by maintaining their own languages trigger the birth of Antigrammar or GrammEr. This new grammEr of tolerant rationality
(opposed to violent technical rationality) is in opposition with the model of
prescriptive grammar and hence it is an Anti-grammar, which is within the
body of speaking subjects. As Cricket-bowlers like Kapil Dev or Walsh do
not need to know the rules of Aerodynamics to swing the ball, so also Llearners do not need to know the fragmented rules of grammar to distort
the Gestalt effect of language as a whole. Anti-grammar is equivalent to
grammEr. The purpose of choosing these misspellings is to attest the
perception of students, who often misspell this in analogy with other ers and to represent their consciousness, which is antithetical to the
existing form of grammar-education. This "anti-grammar =grammEr"
comes out from the alternative experiments of deschooling, third/fourth
theatre etc21.

11

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

End notes
1. This type of neologism might be rejected though there are ample examples
where white sahibs have invented new technical terms or even misspellings to
elaborate a novel concept. I ( an accidentally born brown MAN, a unrepentant
local sub-altern non-collaborator, a part of academic tribe.) have no such lofty goal
for a breakthrough neologism as I have just played with the I (posited as ego) of Identity and have coined a term my-dentity. ( caution: If anyone with a mood of
punning and that is the worst rhetoric, which is sometimes used by the cunning
participant in manipulative dialogue by deploying the
chala, jati and
nigrahasthana (according to Nyaya theory, these are the procedures manipulation
in an unhealthy debate. cf. endnote 3), would associate -dentity with the dentist
I would better request him to do it with for both the words Identiy as well as mydentity. Secondly, Inden (M.Inden M. Marriot. 1977. Towards an Ethnosociology
of South Asian Caste system. in David, K.A. ed. The New Wind: Changing
Identities in South Asia. The Hague.) Introduced a special term, dividual (as
opposite to individual) to elaborate the issue of being-in-common of a kowm as it
is found in the context of the South Asia. Though, to me, notions are far more
important than such notational neologism, I have used it to emphasize the
switching over from nominative marker to possessive marker.

2. J. Derrida. Monolingualism of the Other; or, The Prosthesis of Origin.

(Stanford California: Stanford University Press, 1998), 10
3. Navyanyaya is a school of Indian Philosophy that had developed in the so-called
middle ages by shifting the paradigm of Old Nyaya, a formal system of
mathematico-logical thought.
4. B. K. Matilal, Logic, Language and Reality (Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas, 1985),
9-22
Let me elaborate the Nyaya theory of debating or katha.
'Katha', instead of monologue, is rather a dialogue between vadi (propagator) and
prativadi (refutor). There are three types of 'Katha' according to Nyaya
Philosophy, viz. 'Vada', 'jalpa', 'vitanda.
"When two opposite parties dispute over their respective theses,...... in which each
of them tries to prove his (sic) own thesis with reasons, each of the thesis is called
vada." S.N. Dasgupta, History of Indian Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas,
1922/1975),360. Vada from the perspective of Critical Theory, is a "rational
problem solving discourse" based on pramana and tarka (evidence and argument)
with no interest of winning the dispute. The only purpose of this rational
conversation (ukti-pratyukti) is 'tattvanirnaya' or 'Determination of theory with no
humiliation of the opponent. Thus, it depends on the mutual understanding
between vadi-prativadi, both of whom are contributing in the decision-making

12

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

policy. "Vada" is also related to Caraka's (an exponent of Indian Medical Science
or a group of people devoted to Medical Science) concept of "sandhya sambhasa"
(friendly and congenial debate). Only the seekers after the theory of truth
(tattvabubhutsu) can participate in this type of debating. On the other hand, "Jalpa
means a dispute in which disputants give wrangling rejoinders in order to defeat
their respective opponents." (ibid) In this case, one of the debaters must win and
the winner may be determined by a judge or panel of judges. Uddotkara mentioned
that this type of debate needs the providing and rebuttal "based upon equivocation
(Chala) and parity of reasoning (jati) and censure of all kinds. " B. K. Matilal,
Logic, Language and Reality (Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas, 1985), 13 "Chala means
the intentional misinterpretation of the opponents' argument for the purpose of
defeating him(sic). Jati consists in the drawing of contradictory conclusions, the
raising of false issues or the like with deliberate intention of defeating an
opponent." S.N. Dasgupta, History of Indian Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal
Banarasidas, 1922/1975), 362. Anyway, this tricky debate with the intention of
winning has nothing to do with communicative competence and it leads to a
discourse generally found in some popular interviews and chat shows. Thirdly, " A
Jalpa is called vitanda when it is only a destructive criticism which seeks to refute
opponents' doctrine without seeking to establish or formulate any new doctrine."
S.N. Dasgupta, History of Indian Philosophy (Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas,
1922/1975), 362. It is, from the standpoint of critical theory, a latent or non-latent
strategic systematically distorted communication to manipulate others argument by
using chala, jati etc. and there is no question of proving the counter-thesis. Today's
political discourse or language of competitive advertisement is pervaded by the
Vitanda and there is no question of vada in these frustrating times of total
manipulation. D. Bandyopadhyay, Chomsky and Habermas via Nyaya Theory of
Debating (Delhi: Language Forum. XXIII:1-2, 1997b), 115-123
5. D. Bandyopadhyay, Chomsky and Habermas via Nyaya Theory of Debating
(Delhi: Language Forum. XXIII:1-2, 1997b), 115-123
6. K. Marx, Capital. (Vol.III) (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1894/1959) 776
7. A. Sen, Poverty and Famines (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981) 1-2
8. For detailed discussion on this signifier, cf. Chapter on
Money in Marx's Grundrisse, K. Marx, Grundrisse: Outlines of
the Critique of Political Economy (London: Penguin, 185761/1973, Tr. Martin Nicolaus) 163,
221, 234, 838,
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/
9. Stalker is here taking Nietzschean position. No Formalism is complete or
adequate to handle all the human or non-human problems, though once Hilbert
thought to develop an all-encompassing formalism that could articulate and solve
all the possible problems within a mathematical Model. Gdel (1931), taking cue
from Russells paradox (1913), declared the incompleteness of formal system in
his theorem that refuted Hilberts dream. According to his theorem no formal

13

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

system is complete enough to handle all the problems within a formal paradigm. If
one puts any Gdels proposition or Russells paradox (e.g., One Calcuttan says
that all Calcuttans are liars) in Logical Form (that follows the Logical Positivist
path of propositional calculus) of S-Structure in the GB model of Chomskian
syntax, the total formal as well as mechanical algorithmic system may collapse. (
For all these references cf. R. Penrose, The Emperors New Mind (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1990) and Shadows of the Mind (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1994)
Some members of the technical intelligentsia highly depend on the models as a
part of their business. They reduce human beings, by considering them as a
rational agents, into alphabets of the given model, thus human beings are
condensed and undergo a metonymic transformation. The future course of human
action is predicted (and controlled) on the basis of the part or metonymic
knowledge of subjects.
There are models --cat-walking in the ramp. They are slimthey are suffering
from the Anorexia Nervosa (deliberate under-eating for keeping the body
according to the supposed standard of the fashion shows) or Anorexia Bulimia
(voluntary vomiting after eating nutritious foods). They are simulating povertystricken women of the so-called third world, who are also suffering from the
non-deliberate mal-nutritionthey are deprived of food, their entailment of food is
missing for (un)known reasons.
The model scientists, by keeping the supposed norms of the academic fashion
show, either play with the algebra of the model or as a member of data-collection
team, fit data in the dice of models. When they are playing with models, the
happenings of the outer world are in oblivion. They also forget the
foundational/anti-foundational questions of science. If the nutritious
epistemological food (say, as for example, dialogues of Socrates, Spinozas text on
ethics or Wittgensteins discourse etc.) is to be given to the model scientists to eat,
as my personal experiences in the academic community show, they either refuse
that food or after eating that, they try to vomit it out.
Model-Scientists are simulating the models in the rampthe models are simulating
the poverty-stricken women of the world of the thirdand thus some modelscientists are parading in the conspicuous ramps of the academic fashion shows.
10. K.H. Potter and S. Bhattacharya,
(Delhi: Matilal Banarasidas, 1993), 533

Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies,

11. G.B. Sen, Bengali translation and Tafsir of the Holy Al Quaran Sharif,
(Kolkata: Haraf, 1979), 74:6

12. D. Bandyopadhyay, "Sampradan: byakarn, rajniti, arthaniti" [Political

Economy of Sampradana Karaka], Interaction, (Nabadwi, Paschim Banga, India:
Interaction, 2011a), 4-13

14

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

13. D. P. Pattnayak Multilingualism and Mother-Tongue Education. (With a

Forward by Ivan Illich), (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1981).
14. D. P. Pattnayak Multilingualism and Mother-Tongue Education. (With a
Forward by Ivan Illich), (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1981), 24
15. Pattnayaks book (1981), D. P. Pattnayak Multilingualism and Mother-Tongue
Education. (With a Forward by Ivan Illich, (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1981),
24
16. I am paraphrasing this reverse mimicry hypothesis from Larson,
Bhattacharya, G.J. Larson, R.S. Bhattacharya,
Encyclopaedia of Indian
Philosophies. (Vol. IV), (Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas,1987), 81-2 with some minor
changes: The attainment of the discrimination (of the dominating paradigm)
occurs as a result of meditative analysis (abhyasa) of the fundamental principles
through which one progressively abandons all contents of my-ness with a sense of
lacking, saying It is not this, It is not that. There are many consequences of this
sense of lacking or negation: one of which is double negation. A double negation
occurs, in other words, whereby S/HSs with a sense of lacking appear to have
content and content appears to become dominating paradigm. After that, when
lacking self is present to so-called dominating state, this double negation occurs
and become the occasion for the manifest world and experience to occur. Hence,
because dominator and dominated, as perceived by S/HSs at a moment of time,
are all pervasive existents it can be said that this is spontaneous double negation.
This double negation is construed with a simple theory of reflection (pratibimba),
whereby dominator becomes reflected in dominated (thereby occasioning
experience)as in Vacaspati Misraor with a double theory of reflection
(anyonyapratibimba), whereby dominator becomes reflected in the dominated
beings mirror (as in the construction of the savage, where white MAN imposes
HIS own savagery to the other) and dominated in turn is reflected back on
dominator. D. Bandyopadhyay, Sould in and out: Representation of Body, NoBody in the 'Hindu' Philosophy., ( Kolkata: From the Margins, 2002), 182-202
17. J. Derrida. Monolingualism of the Other; or, The Prosthesis of Origin.
(Stanford California: Stanford University Press, 1998), 10
18. W.L. Campbell, The Tree of Wisdom: Being the Tibetan text with English
translation of Ngrjuna's gnomic verse treatise called the Prajdanda, (Kolkata:
Calcutta University,1919)
19. There are four types of languagesaccording to Indian Philosophical system:

baikhari (speaking in waking-state[jagrat] with arbitrary

ephemeral epi-phenomenal utilitarian sign-systems, falsest state);

madhyama (speaking in falser dream-state or svapnavastha),

15

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

pasyanti (unspeaking in a deepest sleeping-state or susupti;

false-state)

paravak (para means beyond and vak is speaking); this

transcendental unspoken and unspeakable zone is to be achieved by
practicing certain formal or non-formal techniques to be found within the
body. It is neither true nor false, but we cannot describe it by means of
baikhari, madhyama etc. It is something beyond logos and not related
to God per se. Supreme God is perceived in deep dreaming, i.e., a false
state). At this level, silenceme (May I introduce here the new disciline:
Silence Studies that deals with silenceme?) would gulp down nonsilenceme. What is to be mentioned is that the different body-parts and
channels within the corporeal are related to these four states of (non-/)
speeches.
All these four steps, as elaborated by Bartrihari and Abhinvagupta, are associated
with the different imagined (?) parts/points of human body. To explore the Indian
concept of language, one might look into the texts (Mandyukopanisada,
Bhartriharis Vakyapadiya and Abhinavaguptas Trantraloka and their subsequent
commentaries. All these are different schemes for the understanding of jivatmas
identity. But thats a different story. According to Indian philosophers, it is
sadhaniya (to be practiced or praxis) rather than sadhya (to be proved). However, I
think this is both sadhya (as there are ample epistemological texts on this) and
sadhaniyaat a time theory and praxis. (for detailed discussion in English &
Italian cf. D. Bandyopadhyay, The Psychology Of Silence: The Story Of Bharat
(Milan: Diaforia No.5, 2011b), and D. Bandyopadhyay , Q&A with
Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay, (Milan: Diaforia No.5, 2011c).
20. D. Bandyopadhyay,
Language-planner Rabindranath. (Pondicherry:
Pondicherry Institute of Language and Culture Journal of Dravidian Studies.
VIII:1, 1997c), 89-95
21. D. Bandyopadhyay, Towards a Praxis of Anti-Grammar.,
(Thiruvanthapurarn.: International Journal Of Dravidian Linguistics. Vol . XXV,
No.1., 1997a), 126-132

16

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

Bibliography
Bandyopadhyay, D.2011a. "Sampradan: byakarn, rajniti, arthaniti" [Political
Economy of Sampradana Karaka] Pranab K. Chakroborty ed. Interaction. (pp.413)
_______. 2011b. The Psychology Of Silence: The Story Of Bharat Diaforia.
No.5. Milan, Italy. (E-Version)
http://diaforiasinecondicio.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/diaforia-n%C2%B05debaprasad-bandyopadhyay/
_______2011c. Q&A with Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay. diaforia. No. 5. Milan,
Italy. (E-Version) English Version:
http://diaforiasinecondicio.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/qa-with-debaprasadbandyopadhyay/
Italian Version: http://diaforiasinecondicio.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/intervista-adebaprasad-bandyopadhyay/
_________. 2006. "SOtto nie SOmoSSar nibedOn. (On my-ness and economic
entitlement) Asok Sen, Partha Chatterji ed. Baromas Vol. 28 October 06. (pp.
217- 22)
___________.2002. Sould in and out: Representation of Body, No-Body in the
'Hindu' Philosophy. From the Margins. (pp. 182-202). Kolkata.
_________. 2001. (M)Other Tongue Syndrome: From Breast To Bottle. Kumar,
R. ed. Studies in Sociolinguistics and Applied Linguistics.(pp. 87-106) Hyderabad:
Booklinks. ISBN 81-85194-68-8.
_________. 1997a. Towards a Praxis of Anti-Grammar. International Journal
Of Dravidian Linguistics. Vol . XXV, No.1. (pp.126-132). Thiruvanthapurarn.
__________. 1997b. Chomsky and Habermas via Nyaya Theory of Debating.
Language Forum. XXIII:1-2 (pp. 115-123).Delhi. ISSN 0253-9071
1997c. Language-planner Rabindranath.Pondicherry Institute of Language and
Culture Journal of Dravidian Studies. VIII:1(pp.89-95). Pondicherry.
Campbell, W. L. Ed. and trans. 1919. The Tree of Wisdom: Being the Tibetan text
with English translation of Ngrjuna's gnomic verse treatise called the
Prajdanda. Kolkata: Calcutta University.
Dasgupta, S.N. 1922/1975. History of Indian Philosophy. Delhi: Motilal
Banarasidas.

17

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

Derrida, J. 1998. Monolingualism of the Other; or, The Prosthesis of Origin.
Stanford California: Stanford University Press.
Habermas, J. 1970. Towards a Theory of Communicative Competence, in
Dreitzel, H.P. ed. Patterns of Communicative Behavior. New york: Macmillan.
Inden, M. , M. Marriot. 1977. Towards an Ethnosociology of South Asian Caste
system. in David, K.A. ed. The New Wind: Changing Identities in South Asia. The
Hague.
Kristeva, J. 1986. A Question of Subjectivity: An Interview in Rice, P., Waugh,
P. Ed. A Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. London: Edward Arnold.
Larson, G.J., Bhattacharya, R.S. 1987. Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies.
(Vol. IV). Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas.
Matilal, B. K. 1985. Logic, Language and Reality. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas.
Marx, K. 1857-61/1973. Grundrisse: Outlines of the Critique of Political
Economy. London: Penguin
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/
Marx, K. 1894/1959. Capital. (Vol.III). Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Pattanayak, D.P. 1981. Multilingualism and Mother-Tongue Education. (With a
Forward by Ivan Illich). Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Penrose, R. 1990. The Emperors New Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Penrose, R.1994. Shadows of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Potter, K. H., S. Bhattacharya ed. 1999. Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies.
Delhi: Matilal Banarasidas.
Sen, A. 1981. Poverty and Famines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, G.B. Tr. 1979. Bengali translation and Tafsir of the Holy Al Quaran Sharif.
Kolkata: Haraf
Siromoni, Raghunatha. 1976. Padarthatatvanirupanam.
Nyayacarya) Kolkata: Govt. Sanskrit College.

18

(ed.

Madhusudan

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

Appendix A
This appendix is for those, who are not at all acquainted with Lacnian
psychoanalysis or Kristeva's semanalysis, where the production a static subject
through and in language is problematized. At the one hand, language confirms the
conscious rules, algorithms, law of grammar, significant structure, accepted
meaningfulness etc. and on the other hand, language is repressed insignificant
drive-governed unconscious sound continuum that disrupts and undermines the
rule-governed phenomenon. Kristeva termed first one as symbolic order and
second one as semiotic order (which is almost similar to Lacanian concept of
imaginary order); the first order, in the social conscious space renovates language,
as produced by constructed transcendental ego or Cartesian mind of stable/static
S/HS as a master of system by repressing the semiotic order.
Kristeva was moving away from the notion of stable subject with
transcendental ego as the master of system and she introduced the notion of
unstable subject who is disrupted by the symbolic order of language or institutional
order, splitting out of the continuum of semiotic chora. In between this splitting or
dividing points of semiotic order and symbolic order, there is a thetic or static or
structuring stage of language. For Kristeva, handling only such thetic structuring
period of the S/HS by deploying analytical grammatical procedures that only
handles the phenotext (rule-governed phenomenon) is inadequate. Kristeva
encompassed this lack in her proposed semanalysis, where she dealt with language
as a both drive-governed fact and something as repressed genotext. Thus Kristeva
opened up an arena that is not confined to the stable ideal speaker-hearer as a
master of the system, but she proposed the presence of genotext (deviations) within
the phenotextinside is outside and outside is inside. The whole scenario may
be structured like this:

Table 1
Symbolic Order
Lacans Psychoanalysis

Real Order
Lacans Psychoanalysis

Imaginary order
Lacans Psychoanalysis
Identity of signifier
I or subjects I-ness as
(miss)recognized in the
mirror. The S/HS have
got
the
Identity,
meaning and presence for
itself from the signifiers
ascribed by the other.

Kristevas Semiology

Human
subject
cannot experience the
real except as it is
constructed in and by
symbolization
or
signification.
Here
Mirror and the body of
the subject stand face to
face.
Kristevas Semiology

Law under which L

operates, L obeys the rule,
grammar, social codes,

Real cannot be felt

without
being
symbolized.

Disruptive elements
present
within
the
signifying
process.

Subjects body as
reflected in the mirror.
The reflection leads to
symbolization.
This
presupposed order is given
by the other to the subject.
Subjects EL is formed by
this primary repression.

19

Kristevas Semiology

LANGUAGE: FROM I-DENTITY TO MY-DENTITY?

structure, meaningfulness,
acceptability, significance
etc.

Repressed non-linguistic
sounds,
moments
of
meaninglessness,
silenceme etc.

Phenotext is the part

of the signifying system
as it presents itself to
phenomenological
intuition as a phenotext;
describable in terms of
structure,
or
of
competence/
performance.

Genotext: deviations,
which form a relative and
shifting trajectory not
restricted to two poles of
intersubjectivity of S/HS.
Within this signifying
process one might see the
release and subsequent
articulation of the drives
as constrained by the
social code yet not
reducible to the L system
as a genotext.
Genotext is within phenotext and vise versainside is outside and outside
in. It is a paradoxan aporia. Unconscious is (un)structured like language.

20