Of Bread and Companions—and Reflection

What words come to your mind when given the prefix "co-," "com-," "con-?" There are pages and pages of such words in our English dictionaries!

The Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary (1987) London: William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd., p. 259, has the following entry:

co- is added to some verbs or nouns, in order to form other verbs or nouns that refer to
PEOPLE SHARING THINGS OR DOING THINGS TOGETHER

In a high school Latin class, many years ago, I remember being intrigued to discover that one's com-panion was someone with (L. "cum") whom one broke bread (L. "panis"). From daily kitchen and TV room discussions among Cosmo house residents, to conversations among the expanded numbers of people breaking bread together at Cosmo's Thursday evening coffee hours and Sunday dinners, enactments of many of the above co-words take place at 307 East John Street on a very regular and predictable basis. Are all such enactments harmonious and without controversy? Hardly, as we know well that one man's meat is another's poison. We also know that "frozen," rigid, one-sided views of the complexities of cohabitation on this fragile planet have no place in our gyrating world. We desperately need to hear and to listen to each other!

Here's a question for you: Can you believe that culture shapes language? Or, perhaps, that language shapes culture? Fifty years ago, or more precisely 44 years ago, in 1958, two linguists, John Carroll and Joseph Casagrande, the latter a U of I anthropology professor, conducted a language experiment among groups of Navajo children. Current at the time was the Sapir-Whorf linguistic determinist theory that language can influence individuals to see the world in a certain way, that language can shape perception. Using "handling" verbs, such as "pick up," "grasp," and "hold," with blue and yellow ropes and blue and yellow sticks, the children were asked to formulate sentences. Those children who usually spoke Navajo (but knew some English) selected blue ropes and yellow ropes as the sentence subjects, whereas those who usually spoke English, even though they knew Navajo, chose ropes and sticks of the same color for their sentence subjects. Can one conclude that an English-speaking culture places more emphasis on color (appearance) than on use (function), as perhaps indicated by the Navajo-dominant speakers in this environment, where ropes were probably used daily in the handling of Navajo horses? Can one see culture reflected in the language choices of these children? The study was certainly limited, and the verdict is still out—but for me it poses an intriguing question.

Then there is the emotional content of language. I suspect that we all have a more emotional response to the word, "commune," (whatever that emotional response may be) than we do to the word, "common." Need I say more?

An octogenarian farmer, still tilling the rich chernozem soils of Illinois, perhaps, was asked the secret of his serene demeanor and longevity. "My guiding principles," he said, are three-fold: plan, carry out the plan to the best of my ability, and take time for reflection." Reflection!

Do those of us who have grown up expecting to experience life in a free and open democratic society really notice—and value—the flow and free exchange of ideas born in far-flung places that our informal setting at Cosmo offers? Have we noticed the uniqueness of this Cosmo exchange, as contrasted with the unfortunately shallow give-and-take among our elected U.S. representatives and throughout our major news media channels? I wonder if we recognize our bond with the generations of Cosmo members whose give-and-take has spanned the globe and the twentieth century, since the Club's founding in 1907? The art of listening, the spirit of honest exchange, the respect for the views and opinions of others are so very available in our Cosmo House at 307 East John Street, and are so very needed.

Here at the U of I, you surely have been part of, or witnessed, a committee where the participants' conversations "contributed" to their coexistence as a group working together. Did the participants take time to listen, or did some just talk and talk?

I would like to suggest that what we talk about in our conversations and the words that we choose do, indeed, shape our thoughts, and can, indeed, improve our situation. Tragically, I believe that our current exposure to war talk pushes us all to uncertainty, at the least, and fear and despair, at worst, as our leaders pursue their narrow goals.

Yes, these are very complex times. What we need, however, more than anything else, is for all of us to realize that when taken in the context of the universe, companions, not competitors, can build the community with potential for continued human, humane life on our planet.