Her English May Be Good, But Her Philosophy Isn't

According to Joanne Dowdy, language is not simply a method of communication or a tool that certain sentient creatures have developed but is rather an essential and irrevocable facet of personhood. A person, says she, cannot truly be self-actualized (in a broad sense) if he or she is not allowed the freedom of his or her native tongue. An assertion like this is a bold one and one that demands thoughtful evaluation—perhaps more than Dowdy gave it herself. Inevitably, it leads one to the question: Can someone lead a meaningful, comfortable, fulfilled life identifying with a tongue that is not truly native?
The question, no doubt, has many contrived answers and yet even more questions that it raises. What is one’s native tongue pragmatically, metaphysically, and ethically? Is it the language that one heard when he or she was born? Is it the language in which he or she had the most formal or informal training? Does someone who is raised in a bilingual household have more than one native tongue, or must he or she choose the one which is truly native? Perhaps the problem in the first place is not really one that is specific to language but has much more to do with a general principle of oppression. Perhaps forcing someone to speak a foreign language is no different than forcing him or her to study in a field where there is no interest or forcing him or her to wear a particular garment. The implications that a worthwhile life cannot be come by unless it is lived in an atmosphere of some preferred speech is problematic indeed. The challenges may not be insurmountable, but the precipice of understanding is nowhere in sight.