Crosscultural Communication in Language and Law, reply to Van Brakel
How do we understand each other across cultures? And how do we understand the understanding across cultures? The paper of J. van Brakel entails a promising entry to these persistent questions; de-essentialising the use of language is the key to crosscultural communication. There is no need to speak the same language, one could paraphrase his conclusion, starting to communicate in a locally shared world (Umwelt) will do the job. The example of first contacts illustrates the point. Van Brakel provides two reasons why this understanding of crosscultural understanding deserves our preference. The first is a theoretical one; it presupposes a more satisfying notion of language than the ideal language syndrome that has haunted our understanding from Aristotle until Taylor. In a perfect Wittgensteinian spirit Van Brakel proposes a picture of language as praxis as an alternative key to the understanding of language use. The second reason why we should prefer this alternative picture of crosscultural communication is a political one. It entails the possibility that all participants start with their own language and end up understanding each other all the same. As far as language is concerned, no preference is needed and no dominance is necessary. This fits well, of course, with democratic ideals of cultural equality. On these grounds Van Brakel defends a de-essentialising across the board.