The umbrella genre of speculative fiction holds a curious position in the expression of social consciousness. Like all art forms, it exists as a reflection of the artist and the material conditions that govern their social realities. This particular craft, however, offers a unique relationship between the theoretical and the tangible.
Speculative fiction concerns itself most directly with the hypothetical, presenting imagined worlds of fantastical, paranormal, and often futuristic nature. These fictional settings are characterized by their departure from realism, but a speculated reality is inherently informed by the social realities and ideologies present in the society of the author. We can thus view speculative fiction and worldbuilding not as spontaneous processes of the human mind, but a real and tangible application of our material circumstances. With this in mind, we can begin to examine the speculative art of conlanging — the development of constructed languages or “conlangs,” often for storytelling purposes — as a reflection on ideology and social consciousness.
It is crucial that we understand language not as an abstract phenomenon, but a direct and ongoing process of historical change shaped by the material conditions of the speakers and influenced by linguistic hegemons, i.e., members of the ruling class. It was Valentin Voloshinov who examined language as a medium of ideology and a reflection of labile social relations; his diachronic examination of language was instrumental in shaping contemporary linguistic analysis. Voloshinov argued that linguistic exchanges were governed by existing social relations; a pre-existing lexicon is utilized such that speech acts are determined by social relations.
We must also look to Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony, i.e., the superstructural dominance of the ruling class such that their worldview becomes the de facto norm. In the context of a cultural hegemon, the social relation between the working and ruling classes is one of linguistic prescriptivism, wherein a purported “standard” manner of communication arises from the dialect of the hegemon. When we look more broadly at the conditions that shape human movement and interaction, it becomes clear that the nature of linguistic change is one of shifting material conditions and social relations; alterations in speech patterns, morphology, syntax, and even the base lexicon itself can be traced to the symbiosis of base and superstructure.
With these principles in mind, we can examine the art of constructed languages as the process of speculating on social realities and how they manifest in speech and writing. They are, at their very core, reflections on the fictional societies they are developed for and the ideologies that arise therein. Let us take, for example, Tolkien’s construction of Quenya and Sindarin for the Elves of his mythos. Whereas Quenya emerged among the High Elves following their summoning to Aman by the Valar, Sindarin developed as a sister language among the Elves that remained in Middle-earth, wherein many dialects of Sindarin would emerge over the course of Tolkien’s three Ages.
The Valar, whose god-like nature makes them something of a cultural hegemon, catalyze the origin of the Quenya-Sindarin split, setting into motion millennia of linguistic change among the Elvish diaspora and establishing an ideology of exceptionalism and prejudice among the Elves toward the Men of Middle-earth.
Tolkien’s work exists as a reflection of his own social consciousness, shaped by his philological studies, his faith, and his time spent fighting in World War I. It is a theological and philosophical reflection on the material conditions central to his life and how he sought to reconcile with the social relations they produced, albeit sometimes questionably. His work in constructing the world of Arda arguably helped to progress his own consciousness through his own linguistic and mythopoeic worldbuilding, representing a musing on the ideologies and cultural hegemonies of 20th-century Europe.
While conlangs are indeed used to explore reflections of ideology and hegemony, they are also tools by which ideology and hegemony can be reinforced, whether implicitly or intentionally. Tolkien’s body of linguistic work draws primarily upon languages from the Germanic branch of the broader Indo-European language family, establishing them as the de facto linguistic norm of his world. While his intention was certainly not to reinforce European hegemons, his focus on Germanic languages stands as a notable example of how hegemony shapes ideology — in this case, the implicit ideology of Germanic languages as the basis for a global language family.
On the other hand, conlangs can be used to reinforce linguistic hegemony in a more direct manner. One prominent example that comes to mind is that of Mark Okrand and his development of the Klingon conlang, intended to be spoken by the eponymous Klingon species of the Star Trek universe. The conception of the Klingons as a faction is historically fraught with Orientalist tropes that embody an euronormative ideology that exoticizes cultures outside of western Europe. The Klingon conlang, as it turns out, is no different.
In interviews done with the National Museum of Language and the Smithsonian Institution, Okrand describes the methodology behind his construction of Klingon, explaining that the bulk of his linguistic influence came from the languages of Turtle Island (the present-day Americas), and southeast Asia, namely in the inclusion of phonological and morphological features not found in Indo-European languages. He goes on to explain his intent to portray the Klingons and their language as “alien.” Needless to say, it is extremely troubling that the Western perception of “alienness” is used as a benchmark for linguistic world-building.
Marc Okrand’s conception of the Klingon conlang reflects the global hegemony of the Standard Average European (SAE) sprachbund and the ideology that results from it: a colonial, Orientalist fascination with languages and cultures beyond that of western Europe. This sheds an important light on the state of social consciousness within the imperial core of the United States: the stigmatization and exclusion of non-SAE languages in Anglophone settler societies such as the United States and Canada, save for their fetishization as “alien” languages that exist beyond the perceived norm of the hegemon. As an active reinforcement of SAE hegemony and the resultant ideology of linguistic eurocentrism, the Klingon conlang offers insight into social consciousness and ideology within the U.S. imperial core, reflecting on the social relation between the in-group of predominantly white, SAE-speaking Americans and non-SAE speakers in occupied Turtle Island and beyond.
The use of conlangs as an artistic contemplation on social relations allows us to gain further insight into social consciousness and its evolution. Through analyzing the biases and methodologies of linguistic worldbuilders, we can better understand how they think based on the imagined realities they shape. Just as conlangs can operate as mechanisms of implicit ideology and hegemony, so too can they be used to challenge these phenomena. In order to reach an ethical methodology of conlanging, we must ask ourselves what kinds of societies we seek to depict and the social relations reflected in the conlangs they speak.When drawing influence from real-world languages, we must be dutiful to recognize them as living aspects of society, rather than abstractions to caricaturize.
Languages, like the social and material relations that shape them, are a mechanism of ideology — and thus we must approach linguistic influence in conlanging as a structural element of language rather than an aesthetic one. We must strive to develop conlangs in ways that honor and respect our sources of linguistic influences, lest we reinforce the social relations that produce Orientalism and exoticization. When we dare to construct languages with an acentric lens, we dare to disrupt eurocentric ideology and SAE hegemony in our work.
About the Author:
