4.1.2 |
SIGN LANGUAGE SYMBOLISM |
Spoken language does not only distinguish itself from
written language but also from sign language. Sign language is a
distinct means of communication making use of parts of the body
or of artificial systems such as telegraphic codes, radio signals
and flags. The one- and two-handed manual alphabets for finger
spelling to the deaf belong to a field of communication where
written language and sign language seem to overlap. In this
section we will only consider the language of corporal signs
which do not imitate a written script, while not making use of
other things or means than one's own fingers, hands or other
parts of the body. Marks or figures on one's body, such as
tattoos, are also corporal signs in a way, but they require
other things or means in order to fix or wear them on the
body. The reason that such marks or figures need not be
discussed here is that the body is not an essential part of their
symbolism. Thus, somebody may have an indelible
nanacatena tattooed on
'er skin, but the figure
itself then represents the
same thing as a nanacatena on fabric or paper. Such is not to
say, of course, that the choice of medium would not matter. No
other material medium is closer and more one's own than
the body one possesses.
But a nanacatena does not need a human body,
whereas human sign language of the type in hand here does.
The symbolism of body signs must not be confused with the usually
speciesist and sexist body symbolism of certain
supernaturalists either.
According to some of them the body or flesh
would have to be conceived of as feminine (as opposed to the
masculine mind), while at the same time being 'the Intermediary
between the life of man and the Cosmos', or 'between mind
and the Cosmos'.
In order to foist their sevenfold — or sevenfault? —
symbolism onto the human body, orificial supernaturalists
may claim to have five openings in their bodies besides
their two eyes. (Perhaps they do, but then their bodies are
different from those of
veridicalistic
human beings.) Such illustrations demonstrate how body symbolists may
seek a but too easy way of exhaling the spirit of
physical exclusivism
and supernaturalism.
When it is for us the outward symmetry of the body which is, first and
foremost, symbolic of
catenical
neutrality, the
meaning of this symmetry applies to both human and nonhuman
bodies, to both male and female bodies, to both the left and the
right sides, and so on and so forth. Hence, we must not only
differentiate the symbolism of body signs and body symbolism,
but also the forms of body symbolism which are supernaturalistic
or exclusivistic and those which are neutralistic or otherwise
compatible with
the DNI.
People who use sign language to express their thoughts,
feelings and intentions often do not realize that particular
signs may have, or have had, different meanings in different
parts of the world. And often they do not know either that the
most significant roots in many signs are to be found in
religious rites and ceremonies. Thus, it is religious people who
were forced to bow the head, knees or whole body in humility, to
stretch out the hands in a prayer for mercy and/or to discriminate
earnestly between the left and the right hands. It was also the
theodemonist directorate that
introduced the ceremony of the
ring at weddings. Originally such a ring used to symbolize the
price which had to be paid to the partner-to-be's relatives (or
rather to the relatives of 'the thing to be acquired'). Many
religious signs have remained or been perpetuated in secular
symbolism, at least the kind of secular symbolism willing to
copy and incorporate any sign, however exclusivistic its original
meaning or present interpretation.
As adherents of the DNI we cannot use signs of which the
interpretation depends on exclusivist presuppositions or
irrelevant distinctions. So we can admit no discrimination between the
sinister hand and the
dexter hand. For example, no adherent
of the DNI shall ever take an oath when required to raise 'er
left hand or 'er right hand exclusively (or an oath tainted with
the verbalism of an incompatible ideology). An oath is not
exclusivistic in this respect, however, if one is permitted to
raise either the left or the right or, for that matter, both
hands. And instead of lifting the sinister hand exclusively, or
the dexter hand exclusively, one can also clasp one's hands
together while taking an oath.
(Altho one should,
then, not shake the folded hands.)
With regard to corporal signs the neutralistic symbolism is in the first
place attached to the balance and symmetry of the body. That is
why an obligation to raise one's right hand when formally taking
an oath is unneutralistic, in addition to being
exclusivistic with respect to physical
laterality.
(Moreover, if having to end with the phrase so help me God in a
state ceremony such an oath is blatantly
religionistic, theodemonistic
and supernaturalistic.)
That is also why clasping one's hands together (which is a traditional
sign of swearing in one part of the world) is an acceptable
symbol of solemnly taking an oath. (See
figure S.4.1.2.1.)
Other traditional signs which keep the body balanced are a
sign for friendship, one for greeting peacefully, and a sign for
take it easy or please, be quiet. (See figure S.4.1.2.1
again.) While greeting one should not bow the head, unless the
people involved all bow their heads to each other in the same
way. Similarly, no-one ought to kiss someone else's hands or
feet as part of a ceremony in which the other person is not
expected to kiss one's own hands or feet. If the people involved
in a ceremony all bow their heads, or kiss one another's hands
or feet, this may symbolize an egalitarian respect for each
other as persons.
Closed, outstretched hands may be a traditional sign of
peaceful greeting for some people, they represent a prayer for
mercy for other people. Yet, such a traditional interpretation
of a body sign does not force us to follow suit, for the body
sign in itself is pure and immaculate. At the most it might be a
reason not to close the hands as a sign of peaceful greeting in
mixed milieus. The signs for friendship and peaceful greeting
are, of course, also suitable as good-day signs.
The above-mentioned symmetrical body signs are symbols with
the same traditional meaning in one or more parts of the world.
That they are acceptable as neutralistic symbols does not mean
that asymmetrical body signs could not be employed by adherents
of the DNI; it just depends on what they are supposed to stand
for. A body sign representing something unneutral like happiness,
unhappiness or
nanaicity
can be asymmetrical, but it is not
allowed to manifest in its symbolism any form of laterality-based,
sexual or other exclusivism. Thus,
someone who is sad or glad to see someone else leave, may wave that
person a farewell with one of 'er hands, so long as it does not have
to be 'er right or, for that matter, left one. And the same applies to
shaking someone else's hand. If a laterality-neutral way of
shaking hands is not a very handy way of greeting in an
environment where not everyone is right- or not everyone
left-handed, this is a good reason to dispense with such a
handshake altogether. (Especially when according to the same
tradition a man is expected to simultaneously kiss a woman, a
woman another woman, whether they find each other attractive or
not, whereas a man is not supposed to kiss another man.) This
may, but need not, result in a greater physical distance between
the people, or the men and women, involved. For those who like
each other there are much more intimate, nonsexualist modes of
greeting, even symmetrical ones, such as embracing each
other, with or without kissing each other on the mouth or on the
cheeks, and with or without a tap on the back or on the sides.
