You are here: Home » Opinions

Opinion: The parallel between language and agriculture

By Gaveliers, The Gavel Media Team, on February 23, 2010 10:11 PM

Karen Kovaka -

Words and gardens: two things which, perhaps, you would never have thought to put together. But, suppose they have a lot in common. Suppose that words and gardens, speaking and farming, land and language, are connected to each other and to humans in strange and powerful ways. What difference would it make?

Speech acts and agricultural acts are deeply intertwined human tendencies, and uncovering the correspondence between the two will help us see them and ourselves in fresh ways.

Words and gardens are connected by virtue of the ways that people relate to both of them. First of all, there is a relationship of dependence between people and their land and between people and their languages.

After all, human society can’t get along without either. Though individuals can get by without ever weeding a garden or uttering a word, people in general need both agriculture and speech in order to sustain and express themselves. While it’s difficult to imagine a world without clothing or sports or machines, it’s impossible to imagine a world without speech or agriculture that is still a human world.

To balance this relationship of dependence, there also exists a relationship of power. The story of humanity’s power over the earth is an old one, often re-told, and it mirrors the story of humanity’s power over language. These two cultural lynchpins upon which our lives and societies depend are also our playthings, cultural products which we build and shape and control.

The fact that dependence and power are coexistent with and basic to human interactions with land and language means that our relationships to these two things are (1) very rich and complex, (2) easily overlooked, and (3) formative for all of us, even when we don’t know it. We can’t take a step or a bite of food without manifesting dependence upon and power over the earth. We can’t greet a friend or turn on the TV without demonstrating that we constantly inhabit the “space” of language, that we are acted upon by words and that we creatively act upon them to express ourselves.

From this starting point, you can argue all kind of symmetrical relationships between people and land and between people and language. For instance, through “words and gardens”:

● People living in the present exert influence over the future. From the hanging gardens of Babylon and the Epic of Gilgamesh to poisoned soil and the silver tongue of Adolph Hitler, few human endeavors are more enduring than works of agriculture and language.

● People express love and care for one another. (As evidenced by Valentine’s Day staples: candlelit dinners, bouquets of roses, love letters, poetry, and boxes of chocolates.)

● People demonstrate their capacity for either responsibility or destruction. Aside from certain basic physical limitations, the only thing that limits human exploitation of agriculture and speech for destructive ends is our choice to care for the words and the places which we inhabit.

The list could go on for pages. What does it all mean, though? This new view of words and gardens also amounts to a fresh view of self, and I am wondering what it means to think of humans as the kind of beings whose existence is deeply connected to words and gardens.

Most people don’t give much thought to being a person of the land or a person of words. This connectedness doesn’t get much attention or consideration – and perhaps a lack of focus on things which are so fundamental results in an incomplete and skewed perspective on what it means to be “me.” If we gave more thought and attention to speech and agriculture, is it possible we would come to a truer understanding of ourselves?