There are those, I think, who view languages as being arranged in a hierar chical structure?at the top of the hierarchy are languages assumed to be original, holy, classical, sophisticated, and learned; and at the bottom are languages assumed to be mistakes (which even the gods can make at times), low, vernacular tongues which are late arrivals in the human habitat, distor tions in "gender mirrors,"1 and irritating murmurs at the borders of culture. There is a close relationship between those who hold this hierarchic view and those who see languages in terms of myths of holiness and purity, upon which their politics of ethnic and national identities are based. The danger in the case of the latter is that thinking about language and identity within grids of power is ethically graceless, for it turns others into hostile strangers. Moreover, such thinking transforms our politics into a delirium in which the stranger is always a monster.2 It's this notion of lan guage creating an exceptional identity?one that bestows upon ethnic and religious mythmakers the right to debase everyone who is different?that makes such a point of view similar to assumptions of hierarchical languages of privilege, available only to the few and likewise creating exceptional iden tities: both bestow the right upon certain groups to inflict humiliations on others, based on proscribed languages. And for those who embrace either view, the fury of their humiliations and debasements, as we know, can never be sated.3