UNIT 1
Tuesday, 05 August 2025 13:15
Conservation of the self is preserving or maintaining who we are, how we are organised and how we adapt to our relationships and
patterns of behaviour. Whenever we use language, we, therefore, reflect who we are in terms of our own frame of reference and
blueprints. This is done when we view language as a process in terms of the identity of the self, the speech situation, and the process
underlying the language of survival and coordination.
1.1 LANGUAGE AS A PROCESS
This section emphasizes how language use is strongly influenced by our background, culture, and personal identity. The pictures show
that although the greeting “Good morning” is the same, the way we continue the conversation differs depending on who we are speaking
to (a colleague, a professional, or a stranger). This highlights that we adapt our language to suit the situation and the person we are
addressing, using different registers, tones, and attitudes. Such adaptability is necessary for “survival” in communication because we must
preserve our sense of self (identity) while also fitting into the social context. Each individual has an idiolect, which refers to their unique
variety of language shaped by their personal experiences, grammar choices, vocabulary, idioms, and pronunciation. Over time, these
unique speech habits can influence households or close groups, creating an ecolect. Forensic linguists even study idiolects to identify
authorship of texts or speech.
The section also stresses that words are powerful cultural tools: while dictionaries may translate greetings from one language to another
(for example, “Dumela” in Setswana as “Good morning”), these translations often miss cultural attitudes embedded in the words. This
shows that language not only conveys meaning but also expresses worldviews and relationships. Communication always involves two
roles: the addressor (speaker/writer) and the addressee (intended listener/reader), but messages can also be received by unintended
parties (receivers such as bystanders or eavesdroppers). This distinction shows that the meaning of language depends on context and
interpretation.
Ultimately, language reflects who we are, how we organize our thoughts, and how we adapt to relationships and behaviors. It acts as a
medium for presenting our frames of reference, values, and worldviews. Through language, we shape interactions between individuals
and groups, reproduce familiar phrases for stability (like greetings or telephone etiquette), and express our imprinted attitudes. The
central question raised is: how does language acquire the power to shape our reality and the way we view the world? The answer lies in
understanding that every word we use carries both meaning and identity, connecting personal experience with broader cultural and social
interactions.
1.2 HOW DO WE SEE EACHOTHER?
AFL1501 Page 1
,This article explores how South Africans perceive one another through the lens of culture, language, and tradition, highlighting the role of
communication in shaping relationships. The story of Julie and Roger Greaves, a white family who adopted two African children, shows
both the challenges and opportunities that arise when people cross cultural and linguistic boundaries. While the Greaveses raise their
children in their own English-speaking South African culture, they also acknowledge the importance of understanding the children’s
African heritage, illustrating how adoption opens conversations about cultural diversity.
A survey of 2000 South Africans found that although a third felt threatened by other cultures—especially among the poor and those with
limited cross-cultural exposure—63% embraced diversity, showing both progress and tension in post-apartheid society. The results also
revealed that Zulu speakers reported higher feelings of threat compared to English, Afrikaans, and Tswana speakers, and that most
respondents (86%) still valued the preservation of their own culture and traditions as central to identity.
Individual stories, such as that of Rosie Roberts, a Portuguese South African who adopted elements of Indian culture after being inspired
by Bollywood, demonstrate how cultural mixing can enrich relationships and foster appreciation across communities. However, experts
like Professors Jeremy Seekings and Rob Pattman caution that while exposure to other cultures may lead to greater understanding, it
does not automatically lead to acceptance or genuine embrace. Linguistic divisions, historical inequalities, and the politicization of culture
remain barriers to achieving the ideal of the “rainbow nation.” Seekings emphasizes that South Africa’s colonial and apartheid history
privileged some cultures while suppressing others, leaving lasting divides, while Pattman notes that many South Africans still associate
culture with race and tend to stay within their own groups. Social anthropologist Sally Frankental further questions why race and culture
are so often conflated, pointing out that while race is biological, culture is learned and can be shared if there is equal access to resources
and respect.
The article ultimately suggests that while cultural diversity can foster curiosity, enrichment, and even cosmopolitan identities, it also
raises tensions rooted in history, language, and inequality. True cross-cultural embrace requires not just understanding but also mutual
respect and equity. For children like Kayleigh Greaves, however, race and cultural difference are less important than the lived reality of
belonging to a loving family, reminding us that language and culture are tools for building connections rather than barriers when
approached with openness.
1.3 IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT
Context is a crucial element in all interaction and communication because meaning only makes sense within a specific physical,
interpersonal, or ideational setting. Both language and behavior gain significance from the context in which they occur, and what may
seem random or inappropriate outside of context often has clear meaning within it. Human survival depends on our ability to make
distinctions — between objects, processes, and patterns — and language becomes the key tool for drawing these distinctions and
coordinating social life. The “language of survival” operates in every speech situation, shaping how people express goals, attitudes, and
worldviews. This process involves several steps: first, people draw distinctions based on their epistemology, or shared worldview, which
frames their understanding of reality. Second, they use words to describe these distinctions; words act as tokens that trigger coordinated
actions, like using a menu to order food instead of slaughtering an animal. Third, words carry intersubjective meanings — shared
understandings built on social agreement. Fourth, these meanings form a system of language, which functions both as a tool and as the
environment in which humans live, almost like a parasite that shapes thought and becomes so natural we no longer notice it. Fifth,
language organizes behavior and social structures, making survival, creativity, and human interaction possible.
All of this occurs within a metacontext, the “context of contexts,” such as the global information world, the knowledge society, or the
“fourth world” of exclusion that includes marginalized groups like the homeless, incarcerated, or illiterate. These broader contexts
influence how languages and cultures interact, often amplifying differences between groups and shaping national and international
challenges. Language, as a system of symbols, links humans to one another and to the world they describe, creating not just
communication but also the very phenomena we observe. This underlines the immense power of language, which can generate
reconciliation, destruction, creativity, conflict, or solidarity. As Maturana and Varela argue, every human act ultimately takes place in
language, meaning that our ability to describe, distinguish, and coordinate through words is central to survival and coexistence.
1.4 SELF REFLECTION, RECURSION AND MISUNDERSTANDING
Human interaction is built on continual coordination of actions, and over time this process gives rise to language as people express their
thoughts and align behavior through words and meanings. Language allows us not only to communicate but also to reflect on ourselves,
questioning our own distinctions and assumptions. As Anaïs Nin observed, “We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are,”
meaning that our understanding of other cultures is shaped by our own perspectives and cognitive filters, not by an absolute truth.
Misunderstandings often occur because each culture operates like a “club” with its own rules, and when people from different “clubs”
interact, their differing rules can create confusion. In the South African context, the philosophy of Ubuntu, as explained by Archbishop
Desmond Tutu, highlights that human identity is rooted in relationships and shared humanity, reinforcing the idea that language and
identity are deeply interconnected.
At the same time, cultural and linguistic differences should not be seen purely as sources of conflict but as valuable resources. As Bateson
noted, “information is a difference which makes a difference,” showing that variation is essential to growth, creativity, and even choices
such as relationships. Narratives — meaningful representations of events over time — help us make sense of change and difference in
society. For South Africans, the challenge lies in managing diversity within a multicultural context. Rather than fearing difference, it should
be embraced as the foundation of novelty, creativity, and positive social change. In this way, differences among groups can fuel
AFL1501 Page 2
, be embraced as the foundation of novelty, creativity, and positive social change. In this way, differences among groups can fuel
understanding, adaptation, and the building of a more inclusive society.
REFERENCES
1. Adali-Mortty, G. 1975. Belonging. In W. Soyinka (Ed.) Poems of Black Africa (p. 19). Heinemann: London.
2. Auerswald, E.H. 1980. Thinking about thinking in family therapy. Family Process, Vol. 24, pp. 1--12.
3. Bateson, G. 1979. Famous last words. Unpublished Dartington Hall lecture.
4. Boxer, P. & Kenny, V. 1990. The economy of discourses: A third order cybernetics? Human Systems Management, Vol. 9, pp.
205--224.
5. Castaneda, C. 1968. The teachings of don Juan: A Yaqui way of knowledge. New York: Ballantine.
6. Day, R.S. 2000. The way forward. Workshop on ICT presented to the Department of Psychology, Unisa.
7. Efran, J.S. 1994. Mystery, abstraction, and narrative psychotherapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, Vol 7, pp. 219--227.
8. Efran, J.S., Lukens, M.D., & Lukens, R.J. 1990. Language structure, and change. New York: Norton.
9. Gonsález, R.C., Biever, J.L., & Gardner, G.T. 1994. The multicultural perspective in therapy: A social constructionist
approach. Psychotherapy, Vol 31, pp. 515--524.
10. Leech, N. L. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
11. Maturana, H.R., & Varela, F.J. 1987. The tree of knowledge. Boston: Shambhala.
12. Vogel, D. 1994. Narrative perspectives in theory and therapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 243--261.
AFL1501 Page 3
Tuesday, 05 August 2025 13:15
Conservation of the self is preserving or maintaining who we are, how we are organised and how we adapt to our relationships and
patterns of behaviour. Whenever we use language, we, therefore, reflect who we are in terms of our own frame of reference and
blueprints. This is done when we view language as a process in terms of the identity of the self, the speech situation, and the process
underlying the language of survival and coordination.
1.1 LANGUAGE AS A PROCESS
This section emphasizes how language use is strongly influenced by our background, culture, and personal identity. The pictures show
that although the greeting “Good morning” is the same, the way we continue the conversation differs depending on who we are speaking
to (a colleague, a professional, or a stranger). This highlights that we adapt our language to suit the situation and the person we are
addressing, using different registers, tones, and attitudes. Such adaptability is necessary for “survival” in communication because we must
preserve our sense of self (identity) while also fitting into the social context. Each individual has an idiolect, which refers to their unique
variety of language shaped by their personal experiences, grammar choices, vocabulary, idioms, and pronunciation. Over time, these
unique speech habits can influence households or close groups, creating an ecolect. Forensic linguists even study idiolects to identify
authorship of texts or speech.
The section also stresses that words are powerful cultural tools: while dictionaries may translate greetings from one language to another
(for example, “Dumela” in Setswana as “Good morning”), these translations often miss cultural attitudes embedded in the words. This
shows that language not only conveys meaning but also expresses worldviews and relationships. Communication always involves two
roles: the addressor (speaker/writer) and the addressee (intended listener/reader), but messages can also be received by unintended
parties (receivers such as bystanders or eavesdroppers). This distinction shows that the meaning of language depends on context and
interpretation.
Ultimately, language reflects who we are, how we organize our thoughts, and how we adapt to relationships and behaviors. It acts as a
medium for presenting our frames of reference, values, and worldviews. Through language, we shape interactions between individuals
and groups, reproduce familiar phrases for stability (like greetings or telephone etiquette), and express our imprinted attitudes. The
central question raised is: how does language acquire the power to shape our reality and the way we view the world? The answer lies in
understanding that every word we use carries both meaning and identity, connecting personal experience with broader cultural and social
interactions.
1.2 HOW DO WE SEE EACHOTHER?
AFL1501 Page 1
,This article explores how South Africans perceive one another through the lens of culture, language, and tradition, highlighting the role of
communication in shaping relationships. The story of Julie and Roger Greaves, a white family who adopted two African children, shows
both the challenges and opportunities that arise when people cross cultural and linguistic boundaries. While the Greaveses raise their
children in their own English-speaking South African culture, they also acknowledge the importance of understanding the children’s
African heritage, illustrating how adoption opens conversations about cultural diversity.
A survey of 2000 South Africans found that although a third felt threatened by other cultures—especially among the poor and those with
limited cross-cultural exposure—63% embraced diversity, showing both progress and tension in post-apartheid society. The results also
revealed that Zulu speakers reported higher feelings of threat compared to English, Afrikaans, and Tswana speakers, and that most
respondents (86%) still valued the preservation of their own culture and traditions as central to identity.
Individual stories, such as that of Rosie Roberts, a Portuguese South African who adopted elements of Indian culture after being inspired
by Bollywood, demonstrate how cultural mixing can enrich relationships and foster appreciation across communities. However, experts
like Professors Jeremy Seekings and Rob Pattman caution that while exposure to other cultures may lead to greater understanding, it
does not automatically lead to acceptance or genuine embrace. Linguistic divisions, historical inequalities, and the politicization of culture
remain barriers to achieving the ideal of the “rainbow nation.” Seekings emphasizes that South Africa’s colonial and apartheid history
privileged some cultures while suppressing others, leaving lasting divides, while Pattman notes that many South Africans still associate
culture with race and tend to stay within their own groups. Social anthropologist Sally Frankental further questions why race and culture
are so often conflated, pointing out that while race is biological, culture is learned and can be shared if there is equal access to resources
and respect.
The article ultimately suggests that while cultural diversity can foster curiosity, enrichment, and even cosmopolitan identities, it also
raises tensions rooted in history, language, and inequality. True cross-cultural embrace requires not just understanding but also mutual
respect and equity. For children like Kayleigh Greaves, however, race and cultural difference are less important than the lived reality of
belonging to a loving family, reminding us that language and culture are tools for building connections rather than barriers when
approached with openness.
1.3 IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT
Context is a crucial element in all interaction and communication because meaning only makes sense within a specific physical,
interpersonal, or ideational setting. Both language and behavior gain significance from the context in which they occur, and what may
seem random or inappropriate outside of context often has clear meaning within it. Human survival depends on our ability to make
distinctions — between objects, processes, and patterns — and language becomes the key tool for drawing these distinctions and
coordinating social life. The “language of survival” operates in every speech situation, shaping how people express goals, attitudes, and
worldviews. This process involves several steps: first, people draw distinctions based on their epistemology, or shared worldview, which
frames their understanding of reality. Second, they use words to describe these distinctions; words act as tokens that trigger coordinated
actions, like using a menu to order food instead of slaughtering an animal. Third, words carry intersubjective meanings — shared
understandings built on social agreement. Fourth, these meanings form a system of language, which functions both as a tool and as the
environment in which humans live, almost like a parasite that shapes thought and becomes so natural we no longer notice it. Fifth,
language organizes behavior and social structures, making survival, creativity, and human interaction possible.
All of this occurs within a metacontext, the “context of contexts,” such as the global information world, the knowledge society, or the
“fourth world” of exclusion that includes marginalized groups like the homeless, incarcerated, or illiterate. These broader contexts
influence how languages and cultures interact, often amplifying differences between groups and shaping national and international
challenges. Language, as a system of symbols, links humans to one another and to the world they describe, creating not just
communication but also the very phenomena we observe. This underlines the immense power of language, which can generate
reconciliation, destruction, creativity, conflict, or solidarity. As Maturana and Varela argue, every human act ultimately takes place in
language, meaning that our ability to describe, distinguish, and coordinate through words is central to survival and coexistence.
1.4 SELF REFLECTION, RECURSION AND MISUNDERSTANDING
Human interaction is built on continual coordination of actions, and over time this process gives rise to language as people express their
thoughts and align behavior through words and meanings. Language allows us not only to communicate but also to reflect on ourselves,
questioning our own distinctions and assumptions. As Anaïs Nin observed, “We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are,”
meaning that our understanding of other cultures is shaped by our own perspectives and cognitive filters, not by an absolute truth.
Misunderstandings often occur because each culture operates like a “club” with its own rules, and when people from different “clubs”
interact, their differing rules can create confusion. In the South African context, the philosophy of Ubuntu, as explained by Archbishop
Desmond Tutu, highlights that human identity is rooted in relationships and shared humanity, reinforcing the idea that language and
identity are deeply interconnected.
At the same time, cultural and linguistic differences should not be seen purely as sources of conflict but as valuable resources. As Bateson
noted, “information is a difference which makes a difference,” showing that variation is essential to growth, creativity, and even choices
such as relationships. Narratives — meaningful representations of events over time — help us make sense of change and difference in
society. For South Africans, the challenge lies in managing diversity within a multicultural context. Rather than fearing difference, it should
be embraced as the foundation of novelty, creativity, and positive social change. In this way, differences among groups can fuel
AFL1501 Page 2
, be embraced as the foundation of novelty, creativity, and positive social change. In this way, differences among groups can fuel
understanding, adaptation, and the building of a more inclusive society.
REFERENCES
1. Adali-Mortty, G. 1975. Belonging. In W. Soyinka (Ed.) Poems of Black Africa (p. 19). Heinemann: London.
2. Auerswald, E.H. 1980. Thinking about thinking in family therapy. Family Process, Vol. 24, pp. 1--12.
3. Bateson, G. 1979. Famous last words. Unpublished Dartington Hall lecture.
4. Boxer, P. & Kenny, V. 1990. The economy of discourses: A third order cybernetics? Human Systems Management, Vol. 9, pp.
205--224.
5. Castaneda, C. 1968. The teachings of don Juan: A Yaqui way of knowledge. New York: Ballantine.
6. Day, R.S. 2000. The way forward. Workshop on ICT presented to the Department of Psychology, Unisa.
7. Efran, J.S. 1994. Mystery, abstraction, and narrative psychotherapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, Vol 7, pp. 219--227.
8. Efran, J.S., Lukens, M.D., & Lukens, R.J. 1990. Language structure, and change. New York: Norton.
9. Gonsález, R.C., Biever, J.L., & Gardner, G.T. 1994. The multicultural perspective in therapy: A social constructionist
approach. Psychotherapy, Vol 31, pp. 515--524.
10. Leech, N. L. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
11. Maturana, H.R., & Varela, F.J. 1987. The tree of knowledge. Boston: Shambhala.
12. Vogel, D. 1994. Narrative perspectives in theory and therapy. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 243--261.
AFL1501 Page 3
