I'm writing a paper on the Ju'Hoansi of South Africa for my anthropology class and I'm trying show how their egalitarian worldview might affect their language structure such as their lack of possessive pronouns. I remember skimming over a theory that stating a society's worldview affects language but I can't remember what it's called. What is the name of this theory?
When you write about that, it might be a good idea to accurately represent the facts of the language. For example, the language doesn't have special genitive case variants for pronouns, like English my, French mon etc. Instead, you just put the 1st person pronoun (or any possessor) before the head noun, as in mí g|à'ásì "my eyes" (1s eyes), dà'á g!ohsì (fire smoke) "the fire's smoke". When the possessor is a noun, possess can optionally be marked with a possessive particle ||'àn plus a pronoun referring to the possessor, as in dà'á ||'àn hì g!ohsì (fire poss. it(fire) smoke) "the fire's smoke". It also turns out that possessive marking is obligatory if the possessor noun is modified by an adjective, so dshàú gèsín ||'àn 'msi (woman other poss she food) "the other woman's food". If supposed "egalitarianism" means that they have no concept of possession, then you would predict that there is no way to say "my eyes" or "the other woman's food", but there is in fact a construction that is specific to expressing the notion of possession. Also, if there were no notion of possession, then there couldn't be a verb dcàá "steal" or a noun dcàákxàò "thief", since all stuff would be jointly owned
I'm not sure there's an accepted term for this. I think this could still be conceived of as a type of 'linguistic relativity', though. Especially, since there's always an interplay between 'reality', culture, and language even in cases of the Sapir-Whorf style of relativity.
Daniel Everett has been proposing a theory of how the Pirahã's evidentiality (and other) features are influenced by their cultural insistence on witness testimony for topics of conversation. He discusses it both in the context of and in contrast to linguistic relativity but I don't think he has a specific label for this position. (See e.g. this paper and his book).