The Whorf Hypothesis as a Critique of Western Science and Technology

Author(s): Peter C. Rollins

Reviewed work(s):
Source: American Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 5 (Dec., 1972), pp. 563-583
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2711660 .
Accessed: 31/12/2012 07:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PETER C. ROLLINS
OklahomaState University,
Stillwater

The WhorfHypothesis
as a Critiqueof Western
Scienceand Technology
BENJAMIN LEE WHORF

S NAME IS ASSOCIATED

WITH A THEORY

OF LINGUISTIC

relativitywhichis knownby various titles-"the Sapir-WhorfHypothesis," "the WhorfHypothesis,""the Whorf-LeeHypothesis."Simple culstates thateveryhumanbeingis bornintoa culturalmilieu
tural relativity
whichdetermineswhat elementsof the worldwillbe importantto the individual by its methods of child rearing and cultural reinforcement.
Whorf'sparticularadditionto this principleof culturalrelativitywas his
assertionof the primacyof languagein thisprocess of selection.In a famous quotationfromhis article "Science and Linguistics,"Whorfstates
thispositionsuccinctly:
The categories
We dissectnaturealonglineslaiddownbyournativelanguages.
we do notfindtherebeandtypesthatwe isolatefromtheworldofphenomena
theworldis precause theystareeveryobserverin theface;on thecontrary,
byour
fluxof impressions
whichhas to be organized
sentedin a kaleidoscopic
in our minds.We cut
systems
minds-andthismeanslargelybythelinguistic
as we do,largely
natureup,organizeit intoconcepts,and ascribesignificances
toorganizeitinthisway-an agreement
becausewearepartiesto an agreement
in thepatterns
and is codified
of
thatholdsthroughout
our speechcommunity
andunstatedone,BUT
ourlanguage.The agreement
is, of course,an implicit
ITS TERMS ARE ABSOLUTELY OBLIGATORY; we cannottalkat all exandclassification
ofdatawhichtheagreeto theorganization
ceptbysubscribing
mentdecrees.'

Whorf'suntimelydeath at the age of 44 in 1941 preventedhim from

Whorf'sreputationand
fullyarticulatinghis theoryof linguisticrelativity.
'Language, Thought,and Reality:Selected Writingsof BenjaminLee Whorf,ed. JohnB.
Carroll(Cambridge:M.I.T. Press, 1964),p. 214, paperback;hereafterLTR.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

564

AmericanQuarterly

an interestin the principleof linguisticrelativitywhichhe formulated

floweredafterWorld War II whenanthropologicallinguistswere reexaminingthe roots of theirsocial science in order to chart possible postwar
avenues for research. In 1952, some of Whorf'sprovocativelate essays
were publishedforthe firsttimein a singlevolumeby the ForeignService
Instituteof the State Department.2In 1953, a conferenceof anthropologists,linguists,philosophersand psychologistswas held at the University
of Chicago, "To define,as clearlyas possible,the problemsraised by the
attemptto interrelatelanguage and other aspects of culture,particularly
in referenceto the hypothesissuggestedin Benjamin L. Whorf's Collected Papers on Metalinguistics."3The transcriptof the conferencereveals thatonlya fewprofessionalstudentsof languagewere impressedby
the depthand provocativenessof the famousamateur's methodsand conclusions.The influenceof Leonard Bloomfield's"anti-mentalism"among
Americanstudentsof language was stilltoo dominantto allow a fulland
sympatheticexaminationof Whorf'sideas. In fact,the conferencewas so
unrelievedby praise that John Carroll, when he edited LTR in 1956,
foundit necessary"to counteractthe essentiallynegative,pessimistictone
whichpervaded this conference."4 Not until the 1960s has it again become reputableforlinguiststo speak ofproblemsofmindand meaning.5
As the "WhorfHypothesis"beginsto returnto fashionin the linguistic
community,a studentof American civilizationmay properlyenter the
scene to locate thisimaginativeman's place in thebroaderintellectualcurrentsof his day. Whorf,of course, claimed that his linguisticrelativity
hypothesisarose fromthe contextof his studyof the Hopi Indians.Yet a
close readingof Whorf'sarticlesrevealsthathis interpretation
of the Hopi
mind and culture was the offspring
of concerns whichoriginatedmuch
closer to Hartford,ConnecticutthanTaos, New Mexico. A novelentitled
The Ruler of the Universe(1924) will be discussedin the openingsection
2CollectedPapers on Metalinguistics,ForeignService Institute,Dept. of State (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1952). George Trager (who studied linguisticswithWhorfat Yale) was
the movingspiritbehindthisForeignService Institutepublication.The F.S.I. was abolished
as soon as the Eisenhoweradministration
tookoffice.
3The conferencepapers and discussionswere later publishedas Language in Culture:
Conferenceon theInterrelations
of Language and OtherAspects of Culture,ed. HarryHoijer
(Chicago: Univ.ofChicago Press, 1954),p. vii.
4JohnB. Carroll,"Introduction,"p. 29.
5See Dell Hymes, "Linguistic Method in Ethnography:Its Developmentin the United
States," in Method and Theoryin Linguistics,ed. Paul L. Garvin (The Hague, Mouton,
1971), pp. 250-325. Hereafterreferredto as "LinguisticMethod in Ethnography."Hymes
explainshow Whorf'spapers fora shorttime acted as "a spark in a chargedatmosphere";
but that a change in the climateof opinionallowed the firesof interestto be extinguished
(pp. 274-78). The renewalof attentionto Whorfand the ideas associated withhis name in
recentyearsis also clearlyexplained(pp. 280 ff).Mr. Hymes' criticismsofthefirstdraftofthis
articleweremuchappreciatedand are here acknowledged.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The WhorfHypothesis

565

of this article. Duringthe Scopes controversy,

Whorfwrotethis novel to
prove that the cause of religioncould muster a sophisticatedand even
"scientific"defense. While at work on his novel, Whorfcommencedhis
explorationof the labyrinth
of language.The second sectionof thisarticle
will explore relevantideas of the linguistswho helped to shape Whorf's
orientationtowardthe studyof language. By engagingin a close reading
of Whorf'sfamousstatementsabout linguisticrelativity,
the thirdsection
of thisarticlewillattemptto showhowinterrelatedWhorf'sfamoustheory
was withhis deep concernabout the threatwhichhe feltscience posed to
religion.In sum, this articleseeks to displaythat the famousWhorfHypothesiswas not simplya general statementabout the effectof language
upon perception.Whorf'sstatementsabout linguisticrelativitywere also
aggressive critiques of the unacknowledged(and thereforedangerous)
limitationsof the worldpicturegeneratedby Westernscienceand technology.
BenjaminLee Whorfwas 28 when he began in 1924 to compose The
Ruler of the Universe.Whorfhad been raisedin the Methodistchurch,but
also trainedas a chemistat the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology.
These two factors,plus his nativegenius,made himeminently
qualifiedto
speak out on the conflictbetweenscience and religionwhichwas soon to
reach a climaxin the trialof JohnT. Scopes.6 Whorfhad a hostof special
theoriesin his quiverconcerningbiology,physicsand thehistoryof science.
Whileintenselysympatheticto orthodoxChristianity,
he believedthatthe
numerousstridentdefensesof the "fundamentals"were doing a positive
disserviceto the intellectualand spiritualgrandeurof Christianity.
Consequently,he hoped that The Ruler of the Universewould attractadverse
criticismfrompunditslike Mencken, because such attacks would immediatelyelevate him and his defenseof orthodoxyto a nationalplatform.
As Whorfconfidedto a prospectivepublisher,"The work contains the
elementsof what mightbe the mosthotly-contested
literarydiscussionof
recenttimes."7
Whorf'sprecise proofscannotbe detailedhere,but the major pointsof
his argumentmustat least be mentioned.Afterreadinga numberof popular volumeswrittenby Sir ArthurEddingtonand Sir JamesJeans,Whorf
became convincedthat he could slay the dragonof uniformtime. James
Hutton's hypothesisof uniformtime was, of course, a significant
under'For a detailed descriptionof Whorf'snovel,see Peter C. Rollins,"Benjamin Lee Whorf:
TranscendentalLinguist,"JournalofPopular Culture,5 (1971), 673-96.
7Letterto Putnam'sSons, Sept. 8, 1925. This letteris doc. #11,App. A of PeterC. Rollins,
"Benjamin Lee Whorf:TranscendentalLinguist," Diss. Harvard Univ. 1972. Hereafter
referred
to as RollinsThesis.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

566

AmericanQuarterly

pinningfor the theoryof Darwinian evolution.For many,it was also a

formidableobstacle to belief in the cosmologyof Genesis. The "new
physics" of Einsteinand Heisenberg(as filteredthroughthe popularizationsby Eddingtonand Jeans) convincedWhorfthatthe spiritof religious
wonderhad returnedto the world aftera long exile duringthe reignof
Newton and Darwin. The universalpoetic images and metaphorsof the
Bible were once more authoritative,for the modernmindhad suddenly
revertedback to the mysteriousrelationshipwithrealitywhichthe author
ofGenesishad feltas he describedthecreation:
We livein an unknown
universe.
Howvast,howdarkare theabyssesaround
thelittlecircleof knowledge
thatis litbythelightof thelampof science...
thatcould
thatcircleoflightwasmuchnarrower
forty
yearsago,andthethings
be seenwithin
lessmystifying,
thancanbe seenwithin
itthenwerelessamazing,
it now.The universeseen withinthatlessercircleseemedsimplerand more
and thatmorerestricted
but clear-cutprospectwas more
tightly
regulated,
comfortable
and morecalculatedto inducethecocksureattitude
thanare the
dimoutlinesof immenseand unknown
thatappearbeyondthelighted
country
of space,mysteries
of time,mysteries
circletoday.Mysteries
of gravitation,
of light,of electricity,
oftheconstitution
mysteries
of radio-activity,
mysteries
of theelements,
of life,mysteries
of heredity,
of speciesmysteries
mysteries
of psychology,
formation,
of personality,
of theso-calledtelepathic
andpsychic
andsuper-psychical.
Howlittledoweknowofwhatthisuniverse
contains!8
While the metaphysicsof Whorf'snovel bear littlerelationto our concernsin 1972,his defenseof the doctrineof originalsinis of greatinterest,
for he rests his case on contemporaryexperience rather than biblical
authority.Whorfconcedes that the doctrineof originalsin may at first
soundlike a horse-and-buggy
notionfora technologicalage. Nevertheless,
Whorfcautionsthatcomplacencyabout the success of scienceand secularism is possibleonlyforthosewho averttheireyes frommodernman's perverse misuse of science and technology.Because so many modernsare
willingto accept this superficialviewpoint,Whorfproclaimsthat the defenseof originalsin is "the onlywarfarethat means anything,
theonlyissue worthtakingsides on."9 Whorf'sironic(and bold) conclusionis that
the doctrineof originalsin, ratherthanbelongingto the never-never
land
of religioussuperstition,is actually a viable intellectualgeneralization
world:
concerningthecontemporary
Consideredas a doctrineof religion,
thisdoctrineof the Fall of Man was
8The Ruler of the Universe,p. 24. This unpublishednovel is doc. #17,App. A, Rollins
Thesis. For a tellingcritiqueof the popularizationsby Eddingtonand Jeans, see L. Susan
Stebbing,Philosophyand thePhysicists(London: Methuen,1937).
9Whorf,
Ruler,p. 142.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The WhorfHypothesis

567

probablythe least mysticaland mostmatter-of-fact

truthin religion.... It
could be deriveddirectly,
like gravitation,
fromthe closestfamiliarities
of
and quiteagreedwithscientific
methodin its mannerof compresexperience,
sionofa worldoffactsintoa compactgeneralizations
Whorf's keenest criticismsare directed at the symbioticrelationship
whichhe sees betweenscienceand war. War researchand war strategyare
actually the most representativeactivitiesof modern,liberal man: once
man has new instruments
to controlthe naturalformsat his disposal,he
inevitablyturnsthese tools againsthis fellowmen. JohnLandon,the central figurein this novel,has a long propheticnightmarein whichhe sees
the worlddestroyedby the kindof holocaustwhichhas hauntedthe mind
of everythinking
man since August 1945. Because the peoples and leaders
of the worldhave lost the insightsof Christianity,
theyare pulledalong by
the aimlessand destructivedriftof events.An armsrace whichexacerbates
internationaltensions eventuallyexplodes in a cataclysmic war of all
against all. At first,new and more destructivegases and other(what we
blithelycall "conventional") weapons are throwninto the battle. But
gradually,all nationsdevotetheirremainingresourcestowardthedevelopmentof a doomsdayweapon. From Whorf'sperspective,there is an extremeironyinvolvedwhenscientistsin a bombprooflaboratoryfinallysucceed in splittingthe atom. To these scientists,such a discoveryseems to
representthe culminationof man's scientificsearch to comprehendand
master the fundamentalforcesof the universe.As a Christianmoralist
concernedwithGod's judgmentof man,Whorfsees thisdevelopmentin an
entirelydifferentlight. As the initial fissionprocess accelerates into a
runawaychain reaction,the reader learns that the superintending
deity
is withdrawing
fromman's world,thus allowingthe dispersionof energy
describedby the second law of thermodynamics
(entropy)to returnthe
universeto thechaos fromwhichit had been formed.Insteadofa culminating step in scientificprogress,the splittingof the atom ironicallyrepresentsthefinalstageofman's alienationfromGod.
As the formsof our three-dimensional
worldare burstasunderin this
chain reaction,God's creationreturnsto the originalbuildingblockof the
universe,light.The apocalypse recapitulates,in reverseorder,the stages
bywhichGod createdtheworldout offormlessness:
ofmatterwhichhe hadseenbegunwascumulative,
Thatdegeneration
likewater
a dike.... The earthwouldspoutlava from10,000volcanoes;
rushing
through
wouldchar,smoke,andblaze;theearthwould
theearth'sgreencoatofvegetation
becomeredhot,orangehot,goldenhot,whitehot,bluehot;liquify,
gasifying,
'0lbid.,p. 130.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

568

AmericanQuarterly

sunbiggerand
withtherushofbrothboilingover;nowan enlarging
expanding
thatsun and its planets.The nebula
hotterthantheold sun,nowenveloping
it flashesintopurelight.Whenthat
becomesrectilinear;
explodes;all itsenergy
blastof energyreachestheneareststarstheylikewiseexpandand exmighty
of
outposts
fromstarto starto thefarthest
is propagated
plode;thedisturbance
I
andbodiless
lightis allthatremains.
theuniverse,
The Ruler of the Universe,BenjaminLee Whorf'sattack upon the easy
conscienceof secular, modernman closes withthisvisionof the beautiful
in judgmentto
universewhichGod created,but man perverted,returning
its preformed
stateofchaos.
BenjaminWhorfbegan his studyof language in 1924,the same year in
whichhe completed The Ruler of the Universe. In his introductionto
Whorf'scollected papers, JohnCarroll admits that "Whorf'sinterestin
linguisticsstemmed from one in religion," but Carroll is extremely
apologetic about this nexus.12Carroll sees it as a youthfuleccentricity
which Whorfoutgrewonce he came into contact withmature levels of
scholarship.
Whorf'sfirstexposureto the studyof languagecame throughthe works
of an early 19th centuryFrench Theosophist,Antoine Fabre d'Olivet.
Whorfwas excitedby Fabre d'Olivet's hieraticuse of linguisticsto "translate" the biblical account of creation.Studentsof Whorfhave discussed
Whorf'sresponseto Fabre d'Olivet the linguist,but nothinghas been said
to date about Whorf'sinterestin Theosophy.TheosophyattractedWhorf
because it promised to help him throwoff the oppressive doctrineof
original sin which had been so central to his novel and its critiqueof
modernity.At the same time,it allowed him to sustainthe reconciliation
of science withreligionwhichhe had achieved in The Ruler of the Uniaffirmation
of the
verse: Theosophyseemed to offera nondenominational
powersof religiousperception;Theosophyalso seemed to be up-to-datein
its readingof the physicaland psychologicalsciences, withoutlosingthe
abilityto integratethesenewinsightswiththeaspirationsofthe soul.13
The worksof FrederickMax Muller broadenedand refinedthe interest
"Whorf,Ruler,p. 205.
"2John
B. Carroll,"Introduction,"LTR, p. 7.
'3Whorf'sinterestin the occult as a substitutefor traditionalChristianitywas not as
insular as it mightat firstappear. For an autobiographydescribingsuch a conversionto
Theosophy by a man who (conveniently)was a spiritualmentor to Whorf,see Claude
Bragdon,More Lives Than One (New York: Knopf,1938). For a discussionof the attractions
and beliefsof occultismin an age of science, see The Occult. Studies and Evaluations,ed.
Robert Galbreath (BowlingGreen, Ohio: BowlingGreen Univ. Press, 1972). This pamphlet
is also incorporatedas a supplementtoJournalofPopular Culture,5 (1971), 627-754.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The WhorfHypothesis

569

in language whichFabre d'Olivet had excited. Muller's writingsare also

fullofdefensesof religion-evenTheosophy.
MUller'sScience and Thought(1887) explainsthat,in the discussionof
language,all roads lead back to the controversy
betweenLocke and Kant:
"Locke's work,in spiteof all its imperfections
is, as Lange in his History
of Materialism perceived, a 'Critique of Language' and togetherwith
Kant's Critique of Reason it formsthe true startingpoint of modern
14 Like Fabre d'Olivet and the later Whorf,Max Muller
philosophy."
intenselyresentedLocke's dissectionof the perceptual process. Muller
refusedto grantthat man's linguisticformulascan be surgicallydetached
fromthe so-called "things" which he perceives. Accordingto MUller's
alternativemodel,"sensations" cause men to have "perceptions"whichin
turngive rise to "concepts" whichare given"names." This entireprocess,
fromthe initial"sensations" to the final"concepts" must be considered
as an organic unit. (In Locke's model, a name is a convenientsymbol
arbitrarily
affixedto a sublinguistic
idea.) MUlleradmiresKant forcombating Locke's pernicioussensationalism.As MUller dramaticallyrecounts
thischapterin the historyof philosophy,in "a world-widestruggle... for
... primacybetweenmindand matter... Kant stoodforthto stemand turn
thetide."'15
Like Fabre d'Olivet,Muller was contemptuousof the approachto man
detached
takenby empiricalscience.The coldnessof such an intellectually
methodcaused it to tear heartlesslyat the livingbodyof experience.The
scienceof language,as the scienceof man,wouldnot be so insensitive.On
the otherhand,the science of language wouldbe "scientific"in a sense in
the methodologyof the linwhichKant's work never was. Distinguishing
guistfromthe approachof a traditionalphilosopherlike Kant is indeedone
of the major purposes of The Science of Thought.Kant's basic position,
that man perceivesthe worldonly through(and never around) the basic
categoriesof his consciousness,is not rejected.MUllertriesto builda basis
for an objective science of consciousnessupon this fundamentalinsight.
Whereas Kant postulatedthe existenceof vehiclesof mentalorganization
such as the concepts of time,space and the idea of cause, Muller thinks
his focus to the
that he can develop an objective science by restricting
externalcultural data providedby the elementsof language: "Without
these categoriesman wouldindeedbe aihoyoD,
thatis, notonlyspeechless,
but mad.... The difference
betweenKant's viewof the categoriesand my
ownis thatKant takes themas thesine qua nonof thoughtin the abstract,
14Frederick Max MUller, The Science of Thought (London: Longmans, Green,
1887), p. 295. MUller figureslarge in Whorf'sreadinglists. For a partial view of Whorf's
readingin thisperiod,see "LibraryBooks Read," doc. #24,App. B, RollinsThesis.
15MUller,
p. 134.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

570

AmericanQuarterly

while I take them as the sine qua non of thought,as embodiedin lan-

guage."16

Whorf'sprogressionfromFabre d'Olivetto Max MUllerwas assistedby

more than the similaritiesbetween the linguistictheoriesof these two
Europeans. F. Max MUller,it should be remembered,was as concerned
withthe evolutionof the religionsof the worldas he was withthe science
of language. In fact,afterMUllerdeliveredthe Giffordlectureson mysticism at the Universityof Glasgow in 1892,he gave the resultingvolume
the provocativetitle, Theosophy:or, PsychologicalReligion. Theosophy
must have intensifiedWhorf's interestin mysticism,especially Indian
mysticism.As MUllerexplains,the philosophyof India bypasses Western
obstacles of sin and conversion,teachingrather"that beatiChristianity's
tude requires no bridges,it requires knowledgeonly, knowledgeof the
necessaryunityof what is divinein man withwhat is divinein God. The
Brahmanscall it self-knowledge,
thatis to say,theknowledgethatour true
self,if it is anything,can only be that self whichis All in All and beside
which there is nothingelse." 17 To an anguishedmodern believer like
words!
Whorf,thesemusthave been comforting
Unlike Fabre d'Olivet,however,Muller never "bends the knee" in his
studiesof religion.MUllerconveysto his readerthat no singletraditionis
broad enough for modern man. Instead, the highest formof spiritual
contemplationis attainedby the intellectualhistorianwho can vicariously
identifywiththe achievementsof religiousspirits,withoutbecomingcommittedto the specificbeliefsof any one sect. Thus, forWhorf,the appeal
of anthropology
was added to the appeal of linguistics.In bothcases, the
investigatorwas not merelypromisedthat his scientificcuriositywould
be enlivened;in addition,the studentcould expect an intensification
of
his own personal spiritualawareness. Withthe insightsof Fabre d'Olivet
and F. Max MUllerbehindhim,Whorfwas to be an unusuallywell-prepared
studentfor Edward Sapir when this leader of what has been called the
movedfromtheUniversity
"AmericanSchool" of anthropology
ofChicago
to Yale in 1931.
It is impossibleto discuss the influenceof Whorf'steacher, Edward
Sapir,uponWhorf'slinguisticstudieswithoutdiscussingfirstthesignificant
work of Franz Boas, founderof what has been called the "American
School" ofanthropology.
Boas' classic, The Mind of PrimitiveMan (1911) claims that all approaches to the evolutionof civilizationprior to that of the American
'6MUller,pp. 476-77. Note how close this comes to makingman fullydependentupon
his language. If languages differin structureand organization,then thinkingwill differ
betweenlanguagegroups-hence we have a germoflinguisticrelativity
inMuller.
17Theosophy:or PsychologicalReligion(London: Longman's,Green,1893),p. 93.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The WhorfHypothesis

571

School have been littlemorethancovertformsof Westernself-congratulation.Boas had studiedthelanguagesand culturesof theAmericanIndians.

He discoveredthat primitiveman, far frombeinga mentalvegetable,or
at most an overexcitedchild,lived in an exceedinglycomplex and emotionallyfulfilling
culturalworld.Westerntheoriesof culturaldevelopment,
Boas concluded,had been premisedon the unwarrantedassumptionthat
material complexityis an infallibleindex of culturalcomplexity.Basing
his complainton his fieldstudies,Boas objected: if we properlyview the
developmentof worldcivilizationon an extendedtime-scale,the advantage
currentlyheld by the West will be seen to be the productof specifichistoricalcircumstancesand not the inspirationof some afflatusinherentin
thecultureitself.'8
Boas' respectfortheintegrity
oftheperceptionsand culturesofprimitive
peoples made the studyof non-Westernlanguages more than of mere
exoticinterest.Occasionally,Boas makes gesturestowardthe importance
of findinga unifying
in culture."9He was also fascinatedby
configuration
the contributions
whichlanguage studymightmake to the unearthingof
these culturalpatterns.20
Nevertheless,Boas did not assert (as bothSapir
and Whorfwould) that therewas a causal relationshipbetweenthe subliminalassumptionsofa cultureand theunexaminedstructureoflanguage.
Whorfmay have concludedthat Boas was responsibleforthe "recognitionthat American[ie., AmericanIndian] ... and otherexoticlanguages
kinds of thinking."21But this conclusionis true only
exemplifydifferent
in a very qualifiedsense. As an outspokenfighterof racial and cultural
men thinkin different
prejudice,Boas was merelyindicatingthatprimitive
categories,and that theirmental processes must thereforebe judged by
differentstandards. While Boas was extremelycritical of injusticesin
contemporaryWestern society,he was decidedly a friendof Western
rationalism.Thus, we must conclude that Whorfderivedan exaggerated
notionof the portentof Boas' statements:accordingto Whorf,Boas' defensesof non-Westernmodes of thinkingmeant that the perceptionsof
non-Westerncultureswere on a par withthose of Western peoples. A
potentialcorollaryof such an incorrectconclusionwould be that if non"8TheMind of PrimitiveMan, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1938), pp. 19-35. For a
detailed examinationof Boas' intellectualdevelopment,see George W. StockingJr.,Race,
Culture,and Evolution.Essays in theHistoryof Anthropology
(New York: Free Press, 1968).
Mr. Stocking'scriticismsof the firstdraftof thisarticlewere muchappreciatedand are here
acknowledged.
"lIbid.,p. 159.
201bid.,p. 159. Similar tentativeremarkscan be foundin his "Introduction,"Handbook
ofAmericanIndianLanguages(Washington,D.C.: GPO, 1911).
2'Whorf, "Outline of the Historical Development of Linguistic Theory," doc. #1,
App. B, RollinsThesis.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

572

AmericanQuarterly

Westernculturessaw more,thenWesternersmustswallowtheirprideand
listen.
Edward Sapir was both intellectuallyand aesthetically fascinated
withthe process by whichlanguage becomes a symbolicsystemcharacterizedby an autonomyand creativityof its own. Sapir likenedthis ever
greater autonomyto a pyramid"called civilization."The pyramidof
civilizationwas distinctlyseparate fromraw experience.Carryingout the
implicationsof his metaphorof civilizationas a man-made monument,
Sapir notedwithsome pridethat "in thisstructure,veryfewbrickstouch
theground."22
Sapir believedthat "a speech sound is not merelyan articulationof an
acoustic image, but material for symbolicexpressionin an appropriate
linguisticcontext."23Prepared as Whorf was to look for patterns in
natureand language,it is no surprisethathe would rememberthat Sapir
emphasizedthe "necessityof gettingbehindthe sense data of any typeof
feltand communicatedforms
expressionin order to grasp the intuitively
"24
In his unpublished
which alone give significanceto such expression.
"Outlineof the Historyof Linguistics,"WhorfnotesthatSapir's "untimely
integrated
deathin 1939preventedhis makingthedirectand overwhelming
statementthat would have eventuallycome."25It probablyneed not be
said that BenjaminWhorfbelieved that his linguisticrelativityprinciple
integrated
of what Sapir's "overwhelming
was a veryclose approximation
statement"wouldhave been.
The Sapir-Whorfrelationshipis extremelyproblematic.A-sDell Hymes
has noted,"thereis no pointor publicationin his career thatcan be safely
taken as representing
'Sapir's view.' Sapir's viewof the relationbetween
was a conlanguage and culture,between linguisticsand anthropology,
tinuouslychangingone."26 It cannot be denied that Sapir (duringone of
his many phases) demonstratedenoughinterestin correlationsbetween
prinlanguageand cultureto promptmanyto name thelinguisticrelativity
ciple the "Sapir-WhorfHypothesis."27Nevertheless,much evidencecan
be adduced to provethatSapir sharedBoas' viewthatwhilelanguagesmay
lack certainconcepts,theyare creativesystemswhichcan be manipulated
22"Sound Patterns in Language," Selected Writingsof Edward Sapir on Language,
Culture,and Personality,ed. David G. Mandelbaum (Berkeley:Univ. of Calif. Press, 1968).
HereafterSelected Writings.
23Sapir,p. 44.
24Whorf,
"Outline . ..," doc. #1,App. B, RollinsThesis,p. 6.
25Ibid.,p. 6.
26Hymes,"Linguistic Method in Ethnography,"p. 268. For views of the evolutionof
Sapir's thoughtwhichuse the same elements,but arrangethemintodifferent
configurations,
contrastHymes(above, pp. 258-68) withRollinsThesis,pp. 231-74.
27Thelocus classicus for this interpretation
is Sapir, "The Status of Linguisticsas a
Science," inSelected Writings,
pp. 160-66.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The WhorfHypothesis

573

by nativespeakers to generatesuch concepts:"all languagesare set to do

all the symbolicand expressivework that language is good for, either
For example,if Kant's Critiqueof Pure Reason
actuallyor potentially."28
to translateinto primitivelanguages,the faultdoes not
would be difficult
lie withthe languagesas symbolsystems:"If theselanguageshave notthe
requisiteKantianvocabulary,it is not the languagesthatare to blame but
theEskimoand the Hottentotsthemselves.The languagesas suchare quite
hospitableto the additionof a philosophicload to theirlexical stock-intrade."29In other words,everylanguage may have its unique mannerof
manipulatingits phonetic sound symbols,but all have the potentialto
describeeveryfacetoftheworldknownbyman.
My conclusion(summarilystated here) is that a close study.ofEdward
Sapir's entirecorpus revealsthatas Sapir's career progressed,he became
ever more suspiciousof the kindof typologicalanalysisof culturesthatwe
findin Whorf'slast articles. Speech became importantto Sapir not so
whichwouldreveal
or as a cryptotype
muchas a key to a new philosophy,
but as a "personalitytrait."30
thehiddenassumptionsof a weltanschauung,
It seems that BenjaminWhorftook up Sapir's promisesabout the possibilitiesof a psychologyguided by linguisticsand loaded those promises
thattheycouldcarry.
withthemaximummetaphysicalfreight
Fabre d'Olivethad taughtWhorfto searchforpatternswithinlanguage.
Along with Fabre d'Olivet, F. Max MUller had encouraged Whorfto
"science" of
anti-positivistic
hope that linguisticscould be a distinctively
the human spirit.At least as Whorfunderstoodthe implicationsof the
worksof Franz Boas and Edward Sapir, the AmericanSchool of anthropologyhad discoveredthat non-Westernpeoples perceivedthe worlddifwere as valuable
ferently,and that theirperceptions,althoughdifferent,
as ours.
The famousarticles in whichBenjaminWhorfstates his hypothesisof
linguisticrelativityare more than dispassionateinquiriesinto the structureof language. They are persuasive,polemicaldocumentsaddressedto
the problemof the conflictbetweenscience and religion.Their polemical
p. 155.
28Sapir,"The Grammarianand His Language,"Selected Writings,
"Ibid., p. 154.
30Readersfamiliarwith discussionsof the Sapir-Whorfrelationshipwill recognizethat
this conclusionis at variance withmost of the literatureon the subject. For an extended
to focus
attempt to explain why Sapir turned away from broad cultural configurations
upon individualperceivers,see Rollins Thesis, pp. 231-74. For Sapir's discussionof how
individualpersonalitieslearn to adapt to the culturalpatternspresentedto them by their
see "The Emergenceof the
societies,and the problemsassociated withsuch an investigation,
Concept of Personalityin a Study of Cultures," "Why Cultural AnthropologyNeeds the
"Psychiatricand CulturalPitfallsin the BusinessofGettinga Living,""Culture,
Psychiatrist,"
Genuineand Spurious."All ofthesearticlescan be foundin theSelected Writings.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

574

AmericanQuarterly

thrustis directedagainst the West's slavishsurrenderto the pretensions

of science.The gentlerartsof persuasionare invokedbyWhorfto convince
his readersthatunpopularwaysof knowinghave been givena newdispensationbecause of recentdiscoveriesbyphysicalscientistsand linguists.31
Boas (as interpretedby Whorf)and Sapir (at least in one phase of his
career) had taughtWhorfthatstudyof patternsin languagecould produce
keys to larger patternsin any givenculture.Boas and Sapir considered
language to be especiallyusefulin thissearch forpatternsbecause, of all
culturalphenomenaavailable to the anthropologist,
the deep structureof
language was least subject to self-consciousanalysis by normal,native
speakers. It was thus part of the "backgroundmaterialof culture."32By
uncoveringthese patterns (which Whorf calls either "cryptotypes"or
"covert categories") Whorf believed that he could unveil the hidden
assumptionsand subliminalassociationsbuiltintothe "habitualthoughtof
a culture."33Because Whorfconceivedof humanthoughtas a productof
the interplaybetweenthe great mindsof a cultureand the cryptotypical
categoriesembeddedin the structureof language,his studiesof the contrast between the world view of the Hopi Indians and the world view
developedby the West inevitablyamountto an unearthingof the cryptotypes hidden in each language system. The color of Whorf's famous
articles comes fromthe elements which he selectivelyexcavates from
each system to prove that "the Hopi observer conceives events in a
mannerfromone whosenativelanguageis English."
different
Whorftries to show that Westernman is a prisonerof the overt and
covertcategoriesimposeduponhimbythe structureof the Indo-European
language. In the process of his explanation,Whorfadopts a clever and
effectivestylisticdevice. He lumps all of the Westernlanguagesinto an
anagram,"SAE," whichhe thenproceedsto use throughout
his discussion
to represent the general characteristicsof the "Standard Average
European" languages.Such a capsulizationmayseem insignificant
at first,
but the rhetoricaleffectiveness
of the anagram soon becomes apparent.
At everystage of the discussion,the Hopi tongueis seen as superiorto
its competitor,"SAE." Withinthe confinesof Whorf'sdiscussion,the
use of the anagram effectively
drains the honorificassociations which
3"The followingdiscussion will draw very heavily from Whorf's clearest contrastive
articles. His argumentsin his TechnologyReview series ("Science and Linguistics,""Linguisticsas an Exact Science," "Languages and Logic") and in "Language, Mind,and Reality"
followthe same lines, but, because of theirpolemical nature,are less useful for a clear,
concise summaryof his position.My discussionhere will try to help you to be a more
sensitivereaderof these minormasterpiecesof periodicalliterature.Readers interestedin a
close readingofWhorf'slast famousarticlesare referredto theRollinsThesis,pp. 275-366.
32Boas,The MindofPrimitiveMan, p. 209.
33Whorf,
"The Relationof HabitualThoughtand Behaviorto Language," L TR, p. 147.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The WhorfHypothesis

575

would otherwisepreventthe reader fromaccepting Whorf'sclaims for

the languageof a small, primitiveculture.By stealingfromthe readerhis
casual sense of superiorityover the backward peoples of the American
continent,Whorf can persuade the reader that those who have lived
withinthe mental boundariesdefinedby the structureof SAE have seen
only a fractionof the mysteriesof the universe.The reader, I believe,is
far more ready to accept Whorf'sargumentabout the narrownessof the
West's viewof naturewhenit is describedas belongingto thosewho speak
"SAE." "SAE" looks and sounds colorless,devoid of depth and vitality,
while"Hopi" providesrichand ratherromanticassociations.
The cryptotypicalpatternwhichhas for so long providedthe guiding
lightfor the habitual thoughtand the developed science of the West is
describedby Whorfas a "binomialformula."This binomialformulanot
onlyguides the creationof individualsentences;it also providesthe basis
foranalogous integrationsof experience.Ever since Aristotlecodifiedthe
use of subject and verb, the Western mind has been obliged to divide
realityintoan agent-acting,
and a thingacted upon. Whorf'scriticismhere
is thatbecause we are compelledto segmentnature's(or our own)behavior
into these categorieswe are forcedto arriveat certainconclusionsabout
the operationof naturewhichare not givenby natureherself:"The SAE
microcosmhas analyzed realitylargelyin termsof what it calls 'things'
(bodies and quasibodies) plus modes of extensionalbut formlessexistence
that it calls 'substances' or 'matter.' It tends to see existencethrougha
binomialformulathatexpressesanyexistentas a spatialformplus a special
formlesscontinuumrelated to the formas the contentis related to the
outlinesof its container.Nonspatial existentsare imaginatively
spatialized
and chargedwithspecialimplicationsofformand continuum.934
At this point,some translationof Whorf'sidea of the binomialformula
may be in order. In his analysis of the Western mannerof dealing with
the conceptof time,Whorfcontendsthatthe structureof SAE is such that
it violates the scheme of nature. SAE is prone to "objectify"or "reify"
whatin the case of "time" is a flowingreality,a sense of "gettinglater."
For example, when I say "I have been workingon my thesis for ten
months," I have created false "metaphorical aggregates." As Whorf
explains the situation,our actual perceptionof the passage of time involves in part the direct,presentexperience,and in part it involvesthe
memoryof past experiences,but it never involves"ten months." This
latter expression,according to Whorf,"Must be [regarded] ... as an
imaginarymentallyconstructedgroup."35Westernersmake this artificial
34Whorf,
"The RelationofHabitualThoughtand Behaviorto Language," LTR, p. 147.
35Ibid.,p. 139.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

576

AmericanQuarterly

analysisof nature because theyuse "perceptiblespatial aggregates" (for

example, "ten men over there") and extendthem to cover verbalization
of "metaphorical aggregates" (as in my example, "ten months"). The
resultis that"A lengthof timeis envisionedas a rowof similarunits,like
a rowof bottles."36
The linguisticpatternsof SAE lead the Westernmindto misconceive
anothersignificant
categoryof physics.Physical"matter" or "substance"
becomes a part of our backgroundassumptionsbecause of the mannerin
which we manipulatemass nouns. Because our mass nouns are so unwieldy,we are led to a hypostatizationsimilarto that whichwas made
with respect to the crucial concept, "TIME."37 Whorf ridicules "our
whole scheme of OBJECTIFYING-imaginatively spatializingqualities
and potentialsthat are quite nonspatial" in a razor-sharpreductioad
absurdum:"I 'grasp' the 'thread' of another'sarguments,but ifits 'level'
is 'over my head' my attentionmay 'wander' and 'lose touch' withthe
'drift'of it, so that whenhe 'comes' to his 'point' we differ'widely,'our
'views' beingindeedso 'far apart' thatthe 'things'he says 'appear' 'much'
too arbitrary,or even 'a lot' of nonsense!"38This impulse to push the
Westernmindoffits much vauntedpedestal is not peripheralto Whorf's
concerns,as any reader of The Ruler of the Universewillknow.Whorf's
argumentgraduallyworks its way to a protest against the constricting
bondsthathave been imposedon consciousnessbytheWesterncryptotype
of binomialismand the resultingobjectification.The intuitivewisdom
of the ages (religiouswisdom,of course, figuring
large in thisinheritance)
has been ignoredby the West because of built-inlinguisticresistances.
The "revelations"of relativityphysicshave called the omniscienceof the
Newtoniansystemintoquestion,and a reassessmentof the basic concepts
oftheWesternmindis inorder:
monistic,
holistic,and relativistic
viewsof realityappeal to philosophers
and
somescientists,
buttheyare badlyhandicapped
in appealingto the"common
sense"of theWesternaverageman-not becausenatureherselfrefutes
them
(if she did philosophers
couldhave discoveredthismuch),but becausethey
mustbe talkedaboutin whatamountsto a newlanguage."Commonsense"as
itsnameshows,and "practicality"
as itsnamedoesnotshow,are largelymattersof talkingso thatone is readilyunderstood.
It is sometimes
statedthat
Newtonian
space,time,and matterare sensedbyeveryone
whereintuitively,
is cited as showinghow mathematical
upon relativity
analysiscan prove
intuition
wrong.This ... layingthe blameuponintuition
forour slownessin
of theCosmos,suchas relativity,
discovering
mysteries
is ... wrong.... The
36Ibid.,p. 140.
37Ibid.,p. 141.
38Ibid.,p. 146.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The WhorfHypothesis

577

They are
answeris: Newtonianspace, time,and matterare no intuitions.
Thatis whereNewtongotthem.39
andlanguage.
culture
receptsfrom
Given his dual insightsinto the related issues of linguisticstructureand
physics,Whorf's conclusion is that the Western mind must seek new
means of articulation:"But whatlies outside thisspiral?Science is beginningto findthat there is somethingin the Cosmos that is not in accord
withthe concepts we have formedin mountingthe spiral. It is tryingto
framea NEW LANGUAGE by whichto adjust itselfto a wider audience."40

Before we can adequately understandthe qualities whichmake Hopi

a superior language to SAE, we must recall Whorf's fascinationwith
the implicationsof the so-called "crisis of modernphysics." Viewingthe
breakthroughwhich precipitatedthe "crisis of modern physics" as a
linguistratherthanas a chemistor physicist,Whorfis moreimpressedby
the importanceof linguisticfactorsthan he is withthe accumulationof
new facts: "the new facts themselvesof course have been many and
weighty;but, more importantstill, the realms of research where they
appear ... have been marked to an unprecedenteddegree by radically
newconcepts,by a failureto fitthe worldviewthatpassed unchallengedin
the great classical periodof science."4' Whorfconcludes that the breakthroughsin modernphysicsshouldhelp us to understandthat the West's
way of describingthe universe is only one among many equally valid
modes: "Justas it is possibleto have any numberof geometriesotherthan
the Euclidean whichgive an equally perfectaccount of space configurations, so it is possible to have descriptionsof the universe,all equally
valid, that do not containour familiarcontrastsof time and space. The
relativityviewpointof modern physics is one such view, conceived in
mathematical terms, and the Hopi Weltanschauung is another and
The assumption
quite differentone, nonmathematicaland linguistic."42
whichholds Whorf'stheoreticalscheme togetheris that "language does
in a cruder but also in a broader and more versatile way the same
thingthat science does."43 Such a statementof the parityof language
and science as organizersof experienceleads us back to the importance
ofthecovertcategoriesdeeplyembeddedin language.
It is properlyat thismomentthatwe can commenceour explanationof
the means by which the language of the Hopi Indians assists them in
achievinga clearer perceptionof those basic concepts "time," "matter"
39Ibid.,pp. 152-53.
40Ibid.,p. 154.
as an Exact Science," LTR, p. 220.
41"Linguistics
42"AnAmericanIndianModel of theUniverse,"LTR, p. 58.
43"ThePunctualand SegmentativeAspectsof Verbsin Hopi," L TR, p. 55.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

578

AmericanQuarterly

and "space," which had been so recentlyclarifiedfor Westernersby

the new physics.The Hopi languageis farless pronethan SAE to violate
the wholenessand energismof the physicalworldas the new physicssees
it. Rather than wrenchingthe universeinto substances and actors, the
Hopi language can bringinto play subtle mechanismssuch as "tensors,"
"aspects" and "validityforms."In additionto avoidingthis pitfallon the
physical plane, Hopi has a uniquelyaccurate way of dealing both with
"time," and the mind's subjective relationshipwith the world-means
fromwhichthe Westernmindis totallydebarredin an age whenscience
has arrogatedto itselftherightto be theonlylegitimateformofknowledge.
Unlike the Western mind, the Hopi mind can commune with the
pervasiveforcesof the universein an enviablypoetic way. It is not surprising,consideringWhorf'sever presentconcernwiththe new physics,
thathe speaks of the process as one of "Events (or better,eventing)"and
describesobjects as "manifesting"themselves.This is the languageof the
new physics,withits focusupon the quantumrenewalof physicallystable
objects and its interestin the atom as an electricalenergyunit:"The Hopi
microcosmseems to have analyzed realitylargelyin termsof EVENTS
(or better, eventing)referredto in two ways, objective and subjective.
Objectively,and only if perceptiblephysical experience,events are expressed mainly as outlines, colors, movements,and other perceptible
reports. Subjectively, for both physical and nonphysicalevents are
consideredthe expressionof invisibleintensityfactors,on whichdepend
theirstabilityand persistence,or theirfugitiveness
and proclivities."44
Because SAE objectifies"time" into units"like bottlesin a row," it is
amenable to a systemof threetenses: past, presentand future.The Hopi
are morefortunate:"The dutiesofour three-tensesystemand its tripartite
linear objectified'time' are distributedamong various verb categories,
all different
fromour tenses; and thereis no more basis foran objectified
timein Hopi verbs than in other Hopi patterns;althoughthisdoes not in
the least hinderthe verb formsand otherpatternsfrombeingcloselyadjusted to thepertinentrealitiesofactual situations."45
In dealing with another crucial category,"matter," or "substance,"
Hopi is freefromthe tortuouslinguisticstructurewhichin SAE is created
by the existenceof "a binomialthat splits the referenceinto a formless
item plus a form."46As withthe concept of "time," the special manner
with which the Hopi language organizes the concept of "matter" fits
directlyintoWhorf'spersistentcontrastbetweenthe old and new physics.
While the "aspects," "voices" and "tensors" have the negativevirtueof
"4Whorf,"The RelationofHabitualThoughtand Behaviorto Language," LTR, p. 147.
45Ibid.,p. 145.
46Ibid.,p. 141.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The WhorfHypothesis

579

avoidingthe suggestionof analogies for an imaginaryspace in which

objects sit,theyalso have the positiveabilityto conveyproperlythe energetic qualities of firmobjects whichquantummechanicshas so recently
discovered.In fact,the Hopi seem to speak of the primaryphysicalworld
in the languageof Planck and Schrtedinger:"our 'matter'is the physical
subtypeof 'substance' or 'stuff'whichis conceivedas the formlessextensional item that must be joined withformbeforethere can be real existence. In Hopi thereseems to be nothingcorresponding
to it; thereare no
formlessextensionalitems; existence may or may not have form,but
what it also has, withor withoutform,is intensityand duration,these
beingnonextensional
and at bottomthesame."47
The facilityof Hopi for dealing with emotionaland spiritualfactors
seems to attractWhorfevenmorethandoes its nimblenessin handlingthe
vibratilephenomenaof the new physics.Here we beginto see how Whorf
has wed his scientificto his religiousthinking.
Not onlydoes Hopi operate
in its "objective" plane to describe physicaloccurrenceswithoutinterjectinglinguisticcategories,but it also freesthe wellspringsof the human
soul to rush forthand mix withthe larger forcesin the universe.In his
descriptionof the developmentof the "subjective" elementin the Hopi
language,Whorf,a scientificlinguist,is providinga structuredroute for
the traditionaloceanic feelingsof mysticism.The "subjective" or "manifesting"dimensionof the Hopi languagenotonlyrelatesto our conceptsof
"time" and "matter,"it bindsthe human spiritwithinthe circle of these
aspects of reality,and thus reunitesspiritand matterwhichare isolated
in separatecategoriesbytheWesternmind:"The subjectiveor manifesting
comprises all that we call the future,BUT NOT MERELY THIS: it
includesequally and indistinguishably
all that we call mental-everything
that appears or exists in the mind,or, as the Hopi would preferto say,
in the HEART, riotonlytheheartof man,but theheartof animals,plants,
and things,and behindand withinall the formsand appearancesof nature,
in the heart of nature, and by an implicationand extensionwhichhas
been felt by more than one anthropologist,
yet would hardly ever be
spoken of by a Hopi himself,so charged is the idea with religiousand
magicalawesomeness,in theveryheartoftheCosmos itself."48
We knowhowimpressedD. H. Lawrencewas by the subjectiverichness
of the Hopi culture.Lawrence saw in the Hopi religionan emblemof his
own drivetowardunification
of the blood withmatter,a unification
which
eliminatedtheintellectualself-consciousness
nurturedbyWesternculture.
Whorf'sinterpretation,
growingas it does out of his Christianbackground,
47Ibid.,p. 158.
"An AmericanIndianModel oftheUniverse,"L TR, p. 59.
48Whorf,

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

580

AmericanQuarterly

plus certain Theosophical accretions,is closer to what we would call

"prayer." In Whorf'seyes, what for the modernman is a privatestate
of impotenturgencyis convertedby the religiousHopi into a transcendental unification
of the privatespiritwithforcesof the universe.Whorfs
explanationof the centralityof this spiritualimpulseof the Hopi culture
is all the more revealingin the lightof those characteristicswhichhe has
singledout as imperfections
of the Westernworldview. Where Lawrence
used the Hopi in his war againstthe intellect,it is obviousthat Whorfis
using the emotive intensityof the Hopi culture to combat a cultural
manifestationof intellect,science: "Every language containsterms that
have come to attaincosmicscope of reference,
thatcrystallizein themselves
the basic postulatesof an unformulated
in whichis couchedthe
philosophy,
thoughtof a people, a culture,a civilization,even of an era. Such are our
words 'reality,''substance,' 'matter,' 'cause'. . . . Such a termin Hopi is
the word most oftentranslated'hope'-tunatya....
It refersto the state
ofthesubjective,unmanifest,
vitaland causal aspectoftheCosmos, and the
fermentingactivity toward fruitionand manifestationwith which it
seethes-an action of HOPING; i.e. mental-causal activity,which is
foreverpressinguponand intothemanifestedrealm."49
Especiallyafterhis exposureto Theosophyas explainedby Max MUller,
Whorfwas fascinatedby the Hopi assumptionof the linkage between
man's emotionsand thephysicaluniverse.At times,he is so fascinatedthat
he makes an outrightdefense of such Hopi schemes, not merely as
justifiablewithinthe Hopi world view, but as legitimatein an objective
sense. Because theybelievein the powerof Hope, the Hopi stress"inner
preparing"which"is use of prayerand meditation,and at lesser intensity
good wishesand good will,to furtherdesiredresults.Hopi attitudesstress
the powerof desire and thought.... Moreover,to the Hopi, one's desires
and thoughtsinfluencenotonlyhis own actions,but all nature'sas well."50
Up to thispointin thepassage, Whorfis speakingas a subtleand discerning
anthropologicallinguist.However, he goes on to make certaingeneralizations which(as in his earlier reflections
of "time") seem to linkWhorf
withtheHopi on theultimatephilosophicalissue involved:
This is whollynatural.Consciousness
itselfis awareof work,of the feelof
effort
and energy,
in desireandthinking.
Experience
morebasicthanlanguage
tellsus that,ifenergy
is expended,
efforts
are produced.
We tendtobelievethat
ourbodiescan stopup thisenergy,
prevent
itfromaffecting
otherthings
untilwe
willour BODIES to overtaction.Butthismaybe so onlybecausewe haveour
ownlinguistic
basisfora theory
thatformless
itemslike"matter"are things
in
49Ibid.,pp. 61-62.
50Whorf,
"The Relationof HabitualThoughtand Behaviorto Language," L TR, p. 149.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The WhorfHypothesis

581

themselves
malleableonlybysimilar
things,
bymorematter,
andhenceinsulated
fromthepowersoflifeandthought.
It is nomoreunnatural
tothink
thatthought
contactseverything
and pervadestheuniverse
thanto think,
as we all do, that
lightkindled
outdoors
doesthis.Anditis notunnatural
to supposethatthought,
likeanyotherforce,
leaveseverywhere
tracesofeffect.51
After demonstratingin specific terms Hopi's superiorityas both a
scientific
and religiouslanguage,Whorfsteps back to generalizeabout the
resultingattitudeof the Hopi civilizationtoward the mysteriesof the
universe.The Ruler of the Universehad describedwithluriddetail how
the Westernmindhad pervertedthe active forcesin nature.In the novel,
however,man's immersionin originalsin had been seen as the rootcause
of his perversity.In these articleson language,Whorf'scritiqueof SAE
formsa basis fora somewhatdifferent
criticism:the "binomialism"which
has shaped Westernconceptionsof "matter" and "time" has also inured
Westernman to the depths of mysterywhichsurroundhim. Using field
reportsfromhis casebook as an industrialfireinsuranceinspector,Whorf
seeks to provehowinsensitive
Westernmanhas become.Our rigidlanguage
structurehas helped us to establish a sense of "routine" in the vast
mysteriesof timeand space. Our languagehas also givenus an inordinate
capacity to manipulateintellectualconcepts and material objects. But
the West has been forcedto pay a highprice forits special powersin the
formof emotionalpovertyand an almostcompleteloss of a poetic-religious
senseofwonder.
In contrast,the Hopi culturehas preserveda relationshipbetweenman
and nature(as well as betweenman and man) whichserves as a pointed
contrastto thesocial worlddescribedby The Rulerof the Universe:
set of
In Hopi history... we .. . finda different
typeof language and a different

A peacefulagricultural
culturaland environmental
influences
working
together.
features
and nomadenemiesin a landof scanty
societyisolatedbygeographic
thatcould be made successfulonlyby the utmost
rainfall,arid agriculture
perseverance
(hence the value of persistenceand repetition),
necessityfor
and on mental
of teamwork
collaborations
(henceemphasison thepsychology
ofvalue,needofextensive
criteria
factorsingeneral),cornandrainas primary
to assurecropsin thepoorsoil and prePREPARATIONS and precautions
cariousclimate,keen realization
of dependence
uponnaturefavoring
prayer
andreligion
anda religious
attitude
towardtheforcesofnature,
especially
prayer
directedtowardthe ever-needed
blessing,rain-these thingsinteractwith
Hopi linguistic
patternsto moldthem,to be moldedagainby them,and so
littlebylittletoshapetheHopiworld-outlook.52
5"Ibid.,p. 149.
52Ibid.,p. 157.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

582

AmericanQuarterly

The Hopi weltanschauungwhich Whorf describes certainlycontrasts

vividlywiththatdeterminedby the languageand cultureof the West. The
Hopi is always in contact with the primaryprocesses of nature,and is
thus not capable of the brutalizationwhichWesternman has repeatedly
displayedin his use of science and technologyto findever more efficient
weaponsofdeath.The Hopi language'sstrongsubjectivedimension(which,
does not interferewithHopi "science") seems to providea
significantly,
channel throughwhichthe social and transcendentalaffectionscan flow
withoutthe kindof conflictswhichconstantlyconfrontthebelieverand the
poetin an age ofscience.
In his last fourfamous articles(whichare not analyzed here), Whorf
mustershis contrastivestudies to condemnthe povertyof the Western
of science. In the firstthree
spirit,and to linkthat povertyto the tyranny
articles ("Science and Linguistics,""Linguisticsas an Exact Science,"
"Languages and Logic") Whorfassembledthe variouscritiqueswhichwe
have discussed. In additionto attackingscience, Whorfemphasizedthe
leadership role which linguistsmust assume if Western science is to
progress. Given our understandingof Whorf's preoccupationwith the
conflictbetweenscienceand religion,we can see the rhetoricalsignificance
hypothesis.
of the corollarywhichWhorfdrewfromhis linguisticrelativity
and naive worldview an
This corollaryis that "From each unformulated
explicitscientificworld view may arise by a higherspecializationof the
same basic grammaticalpatternsthat fatheredthe naive and implicit
view.The worldviewof modernscience arises by higherspecializationof
the basic grammar of the Western Indo-European language." Whorf
of the foreseeablefuturewill
breakthroughs
argues that reallysignificant
depend upon our capacity to create new languages withwhichto think
and say newthingsabouttheexternalworld.53
Whorfbelievedthatthe Westernmindcould not increaseits perceptual
capacities by sharpeningand polishingits traditionallogic. Instead, it
must reach out (as it were, paradoxically,around the principleof linguistic relativity)for the exotic means of organizingexperiencewhich
have been developedby non-Westernpeoples: "Westernculturehas made,
throughlanguage,a provisionalanalysisof reality,and,withoutcorrectives,
holdsresolutelyto thatanalysisas final.The onlycorrectiveslie in all those
other tongues which by eons of independentevolutionhave arrivedat
butequallylogical,provisionalanalyses."54
different,
The natureof Whorf'saudiencein the TechnologyReview series forced
him to followa tack whichwas tightand close to the prevailingwindof
53Whorf,
"Linguisticsas an Exact Science," L TR, p. 220.
54Whorf,
"Languages and Logic," LTR, p. 336.

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The WhorfHypothesis

583

scientificopinion. In his final article, "Language, Mind, and Reality,"

Whorfmakes it clear thathis audience,because it consistsofTheosophists,
inviteshimto allow his imaginativesails to runfreeon a breezyspiritualist
course.55In this final article, Whorfunites his religiousand scientific
passionsin a sophisticatedand culminativeway. Gone are the apocalyptic
visions of retributionwroughtupon the world by a vindictiveGod. In
theirplace is a visionwhichprovidesforbalancingintellectwithemotion,
science withpiety-what an earlierNew Englanderwho despairedof such
a balance symbolizedas an irreconcilablecontrastbetweenthe Dynamo
and the Virgin.Shortlybeforehis untimelydeath at the age of 44, Benjamin Lee Whorfhad finallyresolvedthe pressingdemandsof these contraryforces.In doingso, we mightnote,he speaks morelike theTranscendentalistEmersonthantherepresentative
modern,HenryAdams:
Yoga is definedby Patanjalias the completecessationof the activity
of the
versatilepsychicnature.We have seen thatthisactivityconsistslargelyof
personal-social
reactionsalongunperceived
tracksof patternlaid downfrom
theArupa levelfunctioning
aboveor behindthefocusofpersonalconsciousness.
The reasonwhytheArupa levelis beyondthekenof consciousness
is notbecause it is essentially
different
(as it were e.g., a passivenetwork)but because thepersonality
does focus,fromevolution
and habit,upontheaforesaid
versatile
activity.
The stilling
ofthisactivity
andthecoming
to restofthisfocus,
and requiring
is by reliableaccountsfrom
thoughdifficult
prolonged
training,
widelydiversesources,bothEasternand Western,a tremendous
expansion,
inwhichtheintellect
brightening,
andclarifying
ofconsciousness,
functions
with
undreamed-of
and sureness.The scientific
rapidity
studyof languagesand linthislevel.56
is atleasta partialraising
oftheintellect
toward
guistic
principles
55In Whorf's day, the TechnologyReview aspired to be an intellecturalclearinghouse
as well as M.I.T.'s alumni magazine. Whorf'slast famous article,"Language,Mind, and
Reality," was firstprintedin the Theosophist,the officialjournal of the Theosophical
Society,Madras, India.
56Whorf,
"Language, Mind,and Reality,"LTR, pp. 268-69.

I -

This content downloaded on Mon, 31 Dec 2012 07:14:11 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions