As the French philosopher Jacques Derrida once said, “Everything is language.” Mr. Derrida was simply making the postmodern argument that everything that we interact with is through language, even the physical world we find has a barrier of the word. A similar understanding is formed by Amy Tan in her story “Mother Tongue” as a young girl witnesses her mother being treated as lesser due to her unfamiliarity with the English language. Our ability to communicate in a particular method perhaps does not hold the key to understanding exactly how smart we are but rather may simply hold us to a standard of a higher vernacular. Amy Tan’s central point in relaying her experiences is simply that our ability to communicate does not dictate our worth morally nor societally. This is evident for three main reasons, the first being that language is a multiplicity, the second being a Nietzschean analysis of language and value, and finally the third point being a Deleuzian look at value through the film “American Psycho”
When we look at language we first view it as a universal means of communication, as a civilized means of understanding. However just like a fingerprint, each person's vernacular remains unique, no voice is the same, nor are all englishes the same. In the story “Mother Tongue,” our main character finds themself realizing that yes language may be the standard deviation of determining value, yet each person we interact with, in fact each moment we speak, changes our language and tone. Amy says her english changed from academic in certain spaces to casual in others. This confirms the point that language is indeed a multiplicity inside us, we do not speak one language but many. Take for example the phrase “of course,” depending on how you emphasize the phrase the meaning completely changes, and to that bit of obviousness you may being saying “of course.” However this becomes rather significant when we examine moral and social values of language. Moral and social value is not determined by one's ability to recognize language, but rather the multiplicity it is made up of shows the subjective nature of what determines us as individuals. This subjectivity of what intellect and language are means that no singular person nor society can generate our value or determine our intellect based on our ability to communicate in a particular language.
In the “Genealogy of Morals” Nietzsche asserts that morality in itself is not only a sign of weakness but socially generated. To many this may be a revelation, however the logic is quite sound. For example take a look at debt, the debtor’s relationship to the creditor may be called guilt, but this moral guilt does not proceed the debting process yet rather is created by it. Similarly language does not determine value socially, but in fact it is the other way around. Society dictates the value of language. When we first hear of our main character's mother reading the “Wall Street Journal” it comes as a sort of shock due to our social conditioning, we assumed she was not bright. This can be genealogically traced back to feudal times in which education was for the wealthy landowners, a gift bestowed upon those with power. A dichotomy soon is generated in language where we have the nobility receiving an education in language and all others not. This trend does not end in feudal times yet follows us to the modern era as well where those with money are able to receive the best education often times this means having the highest level of language as well. This is like Pavlov’s experiment with his dogs, we have all been classically conditioned to believe that language is a good indicator of intellect. This could not be further from the truth, language and societal value is flawed, it’s based on a set of views that presupposes a reactionary society.
In Deleuze and Guattari’s own words, “the Schizo out for a walk is a better model than the neurotic sitting on the analyst's couch.” Despite the problematic language, Deleuze and Guattari, (D and G), make a point in the case of Christian Bales character Patrick Bateman who finds his bloodlust and dissociations growing by the day and coming out during the night. D and G would probably be in favor of Mr. Bateman’s erratic and psychotic behavior in the claims that it was producing a form of anti-production, a flow which cannot be tainted by our psychological conditioning to produce. As much as that sounded like absolute dribble, it actually ties into the thesis of societal value very well in an existential sort of way. Our ability to not produce and take part in the consumption based society we live in may come as a relief. This is exactly what happens in the story “Mother Tongue,” The inability to speak perfect english may indeed come as a barrier to many aspects in life yet we can create our own existential purpose out of our own non-production. This sort of process ultimately generates a self worth that transcends that of the societal, for society's value systems are an incoherent nonlinear mess jury rigged together that does not meet the individual need. Life is absurd yet our existential purpose in taking time to be non-productive gives us a relaxing purpose, a sort of vacuum we can fill in any way. In doing this, it actually turns the tables on the argument that those with broken english are less intelligent, for a self generated path requires not only intellect but a certain type of drive not found in many.
In the end philosophically we must come to the conclusion that language and intellect is a subjective measurement that was generated based on power imbalances. However the silver lining is that we do not have to conform to the classical conditioning we face and instead can simply flow in an existential manner. This simply means that the subjectivity of society means we cannot place hegemonic worth on it, a system created on power imbalances should not be maintained and therefore we should dismantle it but not abiding by it, and finally that we generate our own worth, not simply take societies dictated worth. An intellect is not determined by our vernacular but is instead determined by ourselves, we are not a slave but rather the masters of ourselves. Even though everything might be language,we find that that does not dictate that language derives our value, instead we assign the value to language, and thus our selves.
