A contemporary of Kant, the linguist and philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt proposed an alterna- tive term to Kant’s Weltanschauung. Von Humboldt coined the term Weltansicht to discuss his 241 understanding about the relationship between language, thought and worldview. For him, Weltan- sicht would stand for the way language shapes the conception we have of the world and how we negotiate our way through life on a daily basis as we converse with others. Weltansicht therefore precedes the forming of a Weltanschauung, which can include various beliefs. Since both Ger242 - man words can be translated as ‘worldview’, the different perspectives they convey are easily con- flated into one, which is likely to confuse a theoretical discussion of worldviews. To overcome such a confusion, the layered model presented by James Underhill is useful for organising the various theoretical perspectives to linguistic expressions of worldview, particularly since different names are used for the different layers. The model consists of five concentric circles, each of which repre- senting a particular layer of being in contact with the world, receiving and processing information of the world, elaborating on it, and communicating it back to the world. Underhill proposes that the two innermost circles, or most foundational layers, stand for what Humboldt wanted to capture with the term Weltansicht.
The strongest formulations of this position maintain that worldview is completely inseparable from language, is de
240 -
termined by language, that there is no objective reality outside a text making claims to describe such a reality, or that the objective reality is inaccessible. For Wittgenstein, language is inseparable from worldview. Peter Winch has argued that even such a foundational worldview principle as logic is rooted in the social relationships between men. See Winch 1990: 126. For the present study, Derrida’s questioning of logocentrism has important implications. See Naugle 2002: 174-178. Whether we agree with Derrida or not about the inaccessibility/non-existence of the objective reality, his no- tion that the relationships within the text matter is valid. It is methodologically better to assume little if anything about the existing worldviews, and let the understanding arise from the text itself.
Weltansicht could also be translated as ‘worldview’
241
Underhill 2009: 17-18
World-perceiving. The most foundational layer, world-perceiving, represents our changing and de-
veloping perception of the world. 243
World-conceiving. The next layer, world-conceiving, represents the various ways the world as we
perceive it enters our thought and language. We represent things in the world and our experiences 244 of the world with concepts and frameworks, which are closely related to the language we speak. Different languages differ in how they categorise flora, fauna, colours, genders, or use 245 246 247 metaphors. The linguistic structures and concepts are the raw-material with which we can arrive 248 at more elaborate meaning systems.
Cultural mindset. The next layer, cultural mindset, reflects precisely this: in the same cultural and
linguistic area people can form different sub-groups, -cultures and counter-cultures. We find 249 Finnish atheists and Finnish Christians, political left and right, all sharing the same linguistic cate- gories provided by the two main languages in Finland, that is, Finnish and Swedish. Within one world-conceiving culture, the same system of structuring experiences may be used differently, based on the different priorities that the sub-cultures or cultural mindsets hold. 250
Underhill 2009: 134 243 Underhill 2009:135 244 Sahlins 1995: 157-162 245
Regier and Kay: 2009; Gilbert et al: 2007
246
Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips 2003: 61-78
247
Lakoff and Johnson 2003: 42. If an object stands between me and a stone, in English language it is appropriate to
248
say that the object is in front of the rock. This is reversed in Hausa language, where it would be more appropriate to say that the object is behind the rock.
Underhill 2009: 135
249
Lakoff and Johnson 2003: 22-24. The metaphors used in a language give the basic organisational structure, for ins
250 -
tance by associating future or good with the spatial direction ‘up’. Sub-cultures representing different cultural mindsets may hold priorities opposite to the dominant cultural mindset. Yet since the sub-culture shares the basic world-concei- ving system of language and metaphors, they express their different priorities with the same metaphors as the dominant cultural mindset. Lakoff and Johnson exemplify with Trappists, a monastic order, who use the general spatial metaphor of associating ‘more’ with ‘better’. Since the Trappists give virtue the highest priority, ‘more is better’ refers to increa- sing virtue, not material possessions. This exemplifies how cultural mindsets can disagree regarding fundamental priori- ties, and express their priorities with the same world-conceiving linguistic system.
It is in place to note that ideas can cross linguistic boundaries on the level of cultural mindset. Not only can we observe intra-cultural variation regarding different mindsets in one linguistic area, we can also observe how a particular mindset, say Buddhism, can cross linguistic and cultural borders. This is relevant in the bilingual Finland, and it is relevant in the present study where some respon- dents belong to the Swedish-speaking minority. The present study attempts to find non-religious worldview types at the level of Cultural mindset. These will be called worldview prototypes (or just prototypes).
Personal worldview. Within one cultural mindset, individuals can agree and disagree on issues. 251 This layer stands for an individual’s particular version of the cultural mindset she adheres to. It 252 should be noted that an individual does not necessarily adopt and personally adapt only one cultural mindset. In the contemporary world, many cultural mindsets - ideologies, religions and meaning- systems - can be used in life’s different segments. The relationship between personal worldview 253 and cultural mindset is best understood as a systemic relationship: an individual can use elements from several cultural mindsets, whereas a cultural mindset is best defined as a prototype of family resemblance: a pool of beliefs about and attitudes towards the world, which as such provides tools for an individual’s personal meaning-making strategy.
Personal perspective. Whereas some individuals may prioritise openness to change, and hence be
more exploratory in their worldviewing, even those individuals who favour tradition and conserva- tion may change some of their views during their life. Worldview development is a learning process, where development is more notable during the formative years. Even in adulthood changes do occur. Changes can of course be less pronounced and more gradual. To capture the processual nature of how we understand world, the last layer in the model is called personal perspective. The following picture illustrates the various layers.
Underhill uses the name personal world. My adaptation reflects my own perspective on the worldview theory.
251
Underhill 2009:135
252
McGuire 1997: 27-32
2. Worldview and language 254
The interfaces between the different levels are somewhat fluid, and should be seen as distinctions rather than as exclusive categories. It may not be possible to determine where exactly world-con-
ceiving ends and cultural mindset begins. The hierarchical layers described above can act as a map
for understanding the different perspectives of worldview theory. This can be used as a background for locating the theoretical perspective of the present study. I am not focusing on how Finnish cul- ture is different from Polynesian culture, nor am I assessing differences in how Finnish and Swedish languages categorise things compared to Polish or Hindi. Such comparisons would take place on the layer of world-conceiving. I am interested, rather, in differentiation from religion, which is a phe-
Illustration adapted from Underhill 2009: 136. Underhill names the fourth layer differently, and discusses the layers
254
somewhat differently. Therefore, the presentation above reflects my own views, whereas the basic idea is from Under- hill. Personal perspective Personal worldview Cultural mindset World-conceiving World- perceiving
nomenon on the level of cultural mindset - a distinct way of using language within the same cultural area. The task could be approached by studying the programmatic declarations of the various organ- isations and their notable spokespersons. I am, however, going to study people who are in some way affiliated to the non-religious organisations in Finland, without specifically focusing on per- sons with particular positions. The study will be about those elements of the personal worldviews of the participants that can be empirically assessed through verbal expressions.
The most foundational layer of world-perceiving may be at least to some extent prior to
language. It is relevant to mention some aspects of worldview that operate outside and indepen255 - dent of language. Understanding language needs to be considered separately from producing speech. It would be artificial to claim that children suddenly acquire a worldview after assuming a vocabulary of exactly N words, whereas prior to that they had none. Likewise, an adult is not likely to lose her worldview due to an aphasia caused by a sudden brain-stroke. These considerations point to worldviews existing partially independent of language. This may be particularly true for the practical function of worldview, whereas the existential function would at least be greatly aided by an ability to use linguistic symbols. On the other hand, there are mystical strands in various reli- gious traditions which claim that the ultimate reality is beyond linguistic expressions. Such claims are nevertheless, and somewhat paradoxically, often expressed in language. Since such states may even be doctrinally and verbally established as the major goal of human life, it is perhaps more meaningful to talk of them as something that language cannot fully describe rather than something which is impossible to discuss or describe by words. The same could be said about any strong emo- tional experiences, or art. Strong emotional experiences, religious or not, that by their very nature seem to defy what language can capture, have nevertheless been reported in language, which indi- cates that they can be part of an assessment that primarily relies on language.
As a summary, it could be meaningful to distinguish between pre-linguistic, linguistic, and trans- linguistic aspects of a worldview. The pre-linguistic expressions are largely outside the scope of this study, as they either 1) represent the most foundational layers, and hence, are assumed rather than argued for; 2) are difficult to remember and describe afterwards, as in childhood experiences prior to the development of linguistic capacities, or 3) are simply practically very difficult to communi- cate. The trans-linguistic aspects related to important peak-experiences, mystical, religious or oth- erwise, can be part of linguistic assessment to the extent they lend themselves to verbal elaboration. There are various ways in which language can be used to express the underlying worldview. This is most obviously the case with stated religious doctrines, political ideologies and philosophical sys- tems. Other venues for linguistic worldview expression include poetry, songs and literature. Some theorists have maintained that few people can express their worldviews in explicit, elaborate and
Exactly how much sensory world-perceiving is biologically determined and language-independent is an open ques
255 -
tion. I have earlier alluded to studies which indicate that language has some effect on perception. See Berlin and Kay 1969: 104-110; Regier and Kay 2009: 1; Gilbert et al 2008: 1; Boroditsky, Schmidt and Phillips, 61-78
coherent systems. Some have nevertheless done so. Famous examples are provided by religious 256 founders and reformers, philosophers and political leaders. Religious and philosophical doctrines as well as worldview expressions through art are appropriate objects of investigations where the focus is on particular individuals who are specialists on such fields. We can study the worldviews of prominent philosophers, authors, religious reformers, or anti-religious voices. An example of this can be found in Teemu Taira’s article , which compares the ways in which various atheist authors 257 discuss spirituality. These are important aspects of worldview study. At the same time, since we are dealing with non-religion in the lives of ordinary people who in some ways are affiliated with the non-religious organisations, it would not be appropriate to use the works of prominent and vocal exponents of non-religion or anti-religion such as Dawkins and Hitchens to determine the discourse. Letting the worldviews arise from the empirical data may reveal important similarities between the worldviews of best-selling authors and the affiliated Finns, but such assumptions should not pre- determine the methods of investigation.