Enculturation

Not exactly a light beginning, but here’s something from my email archives. To put an Orthodox cast on it, how does the Church come into a new culture, like the Slavic, or Alaskan, or 21st century American?

A question for you ladies. Where does the learning of an indigenous language fit in a classical curriculum? I’m asking from NZ and the reason for my question is that I have been learning Maori language in a small way for several years and it is something I would like to expand to include the children more. I’m a mere beginner in learning about class. ed. and I’m loving the wisdom that comes from you folk but I can see TIME constraints looming! If you were to include the learning of an indigenous language, (would you include this?), what if anything would you drop from your existing programme. Any insight will be gratefully received. TIA Sue.

Hi Sue,

GREAT question. =) Now, I’m about to say something “heretical” (classical heretical, not Christian heretical, don’t panic!), so don’t say I didn’t warn you! =)

I am slowly coming around to the opinion (and it’s only that) that what “grammar” is all about in a classical education is the “enculturation” of the young into the language, literature, history, and general culture of their own people. The first step of a classical education is to make the children culturally literate — in the broadest sense of that term (maybe even a Hirschian sense).

The reference is to E.D. Hirsch, the proponent of cultural literacy. See his New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy and the series What Your __ Grader Needs to Know. Classically educating homeschoolers these days tend to see the trivium arts of grammar, logic, and rhetoric as three age-appropriate “stages” of learning. On that, see the essay by Dorothy Sayers, “The Lost Tools of Learning”. My own critique of this essay (which could stand to be rewritten!) may be found here: part 1 and part 2. My class ed “heresy” is in proposing a quite different view from Sayers of the trivium art of grammar.

In ancient times, children were taught both skills and content at the same time. Indeed the skills were drawn from the specific cultural content and enabled the student to deal with that content. The skills of reading, writing, prosody, memorization, etc. were all taught using the literature, poetry, and history that formed the literary (and religious) core of their culture. Obviously, this sort of enculturation would continue for life, but at a foundational level, it was prerequisite to all further artistic (i.e. productive) work — learning the art of oratory so they could involve themselves in politics (being leaders of their people); learning medicine, law, or some other profession; studying philosophy (including what we today would call science); and writing literature, poetry, or history themselves (i.e. contributing further to the literary culture themselves).

Classical education arose in Greece, so it was the Greek language and literature which young people learned first. When Greek culture began to flow into Rome, the Roman youth at first learned Greek and studied Greek culture because their own culture was relatively undeveloped. But soon the Romans became consumed by the passion to develop their own LATIN culture. Soon there were Latin poets, dramatists, historians, orators, and philosophers. There was Cicero to rival Demosthenes and Vergil to rival Homer.

Later in time, when there was a revival of classical ideas in the Renaissance, what happened shortly thereafter? The rise of the national literatures and languages. Dante began to write in Italian, Chaucer consolidated the “new” English (with Norman influences), and Shakespeare became the master of English. In the other European nations, national languages began to arise among the literate classes, and the first native-language epics and Great Books began to appear about the same time.

The point is that classical education as enculturation stimulates the rise of particular cultures.

Now, to be sure, [even during the time of the rise of national European cultures] Greek and Latin were still “the” classics. The new national languages and cultures were either derived immediately from Latin (Italian, Spanish, French, and all the Romance languages) or they gained their post-Renaissance, enriched form by exposure to the Latin and Greek, often via intermediate influences — for example, Anglo-Saxon via Nordic, Germanic, and especially French. So Greek, and especially Latin, became the roots, and all the new European languages became the branches and new shoots. But still, the point was to develop culture, and that meant to develop rich language.

I recently posted an article by Thomas Babington Macaulay (a 19th c. English historian, poet, and politician) that addressed this very question. What did the British do about the “language situation” in India when it was under the British Empire? Macaulay argued strenuously at that time (and his position became British policy — his rhetoric was totally effective) that the language of education in British India ought to be English because English was culturally superior. Today, of course, you would hear the opposite, in a multiculturalist’s view, that the native peoples ought to be allowed to use their own native languages, and not be imposed upon by colonial imperialists. (Macaulay’s opponents were also advocates of a pro-native view.) Personally, I think this is a tricky problem which goes right to the heart of what a classical education is all about, because as evidenced by the Romans and the rise of the European languages and cultures, what you really want is BOTH. You want your language to be culturally rich, but you also want it to be YOUR language. You want to appropriate, into your own culture, all the myriad and rich forms of thought and expression you can get. This is what gives the gift of penetrating thought, of persuasive speech and writing, and of an ability to learn from history, and from the greatest thinkers of all time through the Great Books — the Great Books of whatever long tradition you stand in, be it Hebrew, Christian, Greek, Roman, English, Chinese, Indian, or some combination of these.

Perhaps the task of classical students in the next generations out from us will be to become competent in two or more of these long traditions. Something like this was happening in 19th century Europe’s interest in the Far East (and native America) before it got cut off by hyper-nationalistic politics and new educational ideals. In any case, it is the access to culture that forms the foundation of a classical education. (IMO)

Now, in the case of Maori language and culture, you have an interesting question. What is Maori culture? My understanding is that there is a rich Maori culture (and language), unusually so for an aboriginal people, but that it is primarily non-literary, i.e. non-written. Is that correct? If so, then you will have to adapt classical philosophy and methods to cope with that major difference. It is also extremely non-Western in mindset, isn’t it? Another major challenge. Also relevant would be to ask about the scope, intrinsic value, and pragmatic usefulness of Maori language and culture relative to English, Latin or Greek (or whatever other language tradition you might be interested in), just as Macaulay asked about Arabic/Sanscrit for the Indian case. (You don’t necessarily need to come to Macaulay’s conclusion.) Finally, what other influences have there been on Maori language and culture? Was it formed into its present shape by melding with some other linguistic or cultural influence(s), as English was formed between the Norman Conquest and the English Renaissance? Is Maori in such a melding process today? With what effect? I would think that, potentially, the Maori case would offer fascinating possibilities, as well as tremendous (insurmountable?) challenges.

So I don’t have any answer for you, Sue, but that is one way, at least, of looking at it through a classical (probably a “heretical” classical) lens. Let us know what you decide! I would be interesting in hearing more.

P.S. The other possibility, of course, would be to simply learn it for “fun”, i.e. not as part of your classical core. There’s nothing wrong with that either, depending on your time available and priorities. =)