10.25.11 Object Lesson

Rorty's discussion of language made me think of the movie Lost in Translation. In it Bill Murray plays an actor who is past his prime. He goes to Tokyo to film a whiskey ad, and from there the story unfolds. His experience with the culture shock in Tokyo, however, is my focus of using Lost in Translation. As Rorty discussed our use of language as a tool, I began to think that when you experience a language you don't speak, the tool that you use to function and make meaning of the world is taken away from you. Rorty notes:

"Truth cannot be out there, cannot exist independently of the human mind, because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own--unaided by the describing activities of human beings--cannot" (67).  

The world is still out there for you but the descriptions you share with others are not. If you can't construct sentences that can be understood by others, can you still create truth? If you end up in a place where the tool you use to construct truth is taken away from you, does that mean you can start to understand what it means when language has no representation? The following scene shows Bob, Bill Murray's character, unable to make meaning from the direction he's been given by the whiskey commercial director.

Bob is baffled by the exchange between his translator and director and the translation he in turn receives. The translations he receives don't appear to represent the direction he's being given. He illustrates Rorty's use of Davidson's point that "all 'two people need, if they are to understand one another through speech, is the ability to converge on passing theories from utterance to utterance'" (76). Here Bob's interactions with the translator in a way signal "the desirability of using a certain vocabulary when trying to cope with certain kinds of organisms" (77).

Later on Bob goes to a photo shoot for print ads of the whiskey. There he again encounters issues with the language and culture barrier.

The photographer can't express how he wants Bob to pose for the shoot until the use of movie star explanations in the form of metaphor (i.e. the Rat Pack) becomes available. The photographer finds a shared meaning with Bob, using movie stars that Bob knows about. Bob, however, gives effect with his facial expressions and reactions--he uses metaphors. When he cannot use the tool of language he reverts to metaphor. Bob finds ways of "producing effects on [his] interlocutor...but not ways of conveying a message" (80). They don't understand his jokes about the whiskey. They don't respond to him but to give him movie stars to impersonate. They do react to his impersonations though.

The first time I saw Lost in Translation, I was in France visiting an exchange student my family had hosted. Even though I can speak the language at a conversational level I still experienced some measures of culture shock, but it was by no means at the level Bob experiences it. While in France I was forced to change how I spoke. My ability to speak was limited mostly to the French vocabulary I knew. It was tedious to look up every word I wanted to use in my French/English dictionary so I learned to make do with what I already knew. This leads me to the point Rorty makes from a Nietzschean view: "to change how we talk is to change what, for our own purpose, we are" (81). Bob had to adapt to his surroundings and change how he was able to speak to those in Tokyo. He was limited to very basic English; I had to do the same thing in France and was limited based on what French vocabulary I knew. I made use of many metaphors by Davidson's literal standards. I made faces, hand gestures, and pointed and they had effect. I was unable, however, to fully express my thoughts and opinions. I guess this leads to more questions on my part. By changing languages did I change the tools I use to understand the world? Did the truth as I experience it through language change? The only direction Rorty gives me to answer this is "that the world does not provide us with any criteria of choice between alternative metaphors, that we can only compare Languages or metaphors with one another, not with something beyond Language called 'fact.'" (82). Thus I am not certain of the exact effect on how changing language changes how you experience the truth.The world is still there to experience, but the meaning from my sentences and words has changed from English to French. Using the language barrier as a case in point does help me understand how being able to express truths to others is affected.