Language and Politics in India and China: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study

This paper provides a concise insight into the relationship between language and politically relevant aspects of culture in India and China which are as follows: attitude towards revolution and tradition, the domination of politics over religion or vice versa, and a concern for the liberty of the individual. The paper introduces a novel approach to the comparative study of civilizations by advancing the political-linguistic explanation. In so doing, it combines Hajime Nakamura’s hypothesis of the strict connection between language and culture (including ways of thinking) with Samuel P. Huntington’s emphasis on the impact of cultural differences on the political dimension of society so that the chain of inherent connections can be created: language—culture—politics. In addition, this paper also owes its inspiration to other internationally acknowledged scholars, such as Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, John A. Rapp, Feng Youlan, and Chad Hansen. As far as language is concerned, the focus is on Indian/Chinese philosophy of language (especially on the perception of meaning) and the basic structure of Sanskrit/Chinese. Culturally and politically, the most relevant schools of Hindu philosophy (Nyaya, Mimamsa, and Advaita Vedanta) may be called “ultraconservative,” since they tend to ground unchanging meaning firmly in metaphysics and rely on the supreme authority of ancient religious texts. In contrast, the Chinese normally considered language to be a social mechanism for shaping our behavior (so the relation of language and society is the most crucial), they also expressed clearly divergent views on naming. In short, at least four distinctive perspectives may be important: (1) conservative Confucianism (zhengming, i.e. “the rectification of names” by settling “correct” language use, which promoted the complex traditional hierarchy based on social obligations, although it also served to promote some progressive ideas, such as a secular social theory, meritocracy, and the right to overthrow an evil ruler); (2) anti-traditional and highly authoritarian Legalism (full control over discourse in the ruler’s interest in order to wipe out interpretive subjectivity); (3) egalitarian and linguistically skeptical Laozian Daoism (freedom from socially constructed distinctions which control people by controlling their desires and serve to privilege or discriminate against different groups, since ultimately there are no constant names); and (4) nonconformist and proto-libertarian Zhuangzian Daoism (anti-conventional attitudes associated with relativistic–deconstructive–poetic–analytic–humorous approach to language; this perspective was influenced by Huizi from the School of Names, whereas Zhuangzi influenced Wei-Jin Daoist anarchists, also known as “the Zhuangzian anarchists”). Finally, as far as politics is concerned, the relevant aspects are summed up from the point of view of history and political thought.