“We Must Learn Where We Live”: Language, Identity, and the Colonial Condition in Brian Friel’s Translations

Abstract

MILITARY imperialism is only first step establishing imperial hegemony--and an uneconomic one at that. (1) It is costly and, by itself, produces few long-term benefits for colonizer. Therefore, must followed by strategies to persuade colonized to accept their condition and transfer their allegiance to their conquerors to ensure an uninterrupted flow of benefits from colonized to colonizer without further military intervention. As early as 1596 (2) Edmund Spenser advocated linguistic imperialism as such a strategy. In A View of Present State of Ireland, he asserts that it hath ever been use of conqueror to despise language of conquered, and to force him by all means to learn (1970:67) because language equals identity and allegiance: the speech being Irish, heart must needs (1970:68). The obverse, he hoped, would equally true could Irish persuaded to abandon their aboriginal tongue for English. He avers that even reviving Edward IV's statute requiring Irish to abandon their sept names favor of surnames based on occupation, appearance, or locality would in a short time [lead them] quite to forger [their] Irish nation (1970:156). The implication is that abandoning Irish language--including Irish names--for would obliterate Irish identity and culture that he identifies as source of their resistance to colonization and would render them useful, loyal subjects. It is this implication that Brian Friel explores and, though he grants some validity, ultimately rejects Translations. Spenser's idea of effect of linguistic imperialism implies that language structures what R.D. Laing calls experience--i.e., how we perceive and comprehend world, including ourselves--and implies agreement with Laing that such experience conditions identity and what he calls behavior--i.e., how we act as a result of our experience. If so, one assumes, imposition of linguistic imperialism should result imperial control of experience and, hence, identity of colonized. However, effecting that control requires destruction of colonized's aboriginal language/experience/identity, and destroying another's experience, Laing says, is a violent exercise of the power to define reality (qtd. Levine 1975:4) that, turn, begets new violence. Laing says that if our experience is destroyed, our behaviour will (1967:12), which suggests that linguistic imperialism should also result destructive behavior on part of colonized. In Translations Friel assesses efficacy of linguistic imperialism by addressing its effects and those of concomitant cultural imperialism on culture, identity, and even continued physical existence of colonized. Although written primarily English, play is trilingually macaronic: English, Latin, and Greek. Significantly, there is not a word Irish, even though most of characters are monolingual Irish speakers whom presumably English-speaking audience are to accept as speaking Irish when they speak English. Friel's choice of languages implies much about his assessments of effects and efficacy of linguistic and cultural imperialism, about ways which colonized react to them, and about most effective way which they can combat imperial agenda, maintain their culture and identity, ensure their survival, and possibly secure their freedom. In play Friel portrays linguistic and cultural imperialism as more insidious than military imperialism they are adjuncts to and metaphors for; Irish cooperate with them as they do not cooperate with British military. A child spits at British soldiers, but Bridget and Biddy Hanna look forward to establishment of National School, where children will be taught to speak and every subject will taught through English (1984:396), and students will sing, every morning, a song thanking God that they are happy little boys. …