Thank God for editor's introductions! There is a lot in this book to cover, and I don't even know where to begin. But I guess the one occurring theme was how language and linguists do not see class or sociology as a contributing factor to communication. I found Bourdieu very interesting in the sense that he used economic terms to discuss language and communication and how all of it correlates to success. But I guess I already knew that subconsciously, being a teacher and all.
Bourdieu seems to stress that education gives some students an advantage over others no matter the social class; however, students are being taught how to 'play the game' without realizing or understanding what 'the game' is. This still sounds like manipulation. Words have power, and the person who knows how to use the words has the power; and when he/she has the power, he/she has the control to influence, persuade, change, assimilate, dissimilate, encourage, discredit, etc. (these are all words with some similar meanings) people. The dominate language allows for power; and those who master the dominate language will dominate the public, or the market.
Language is not only words, it is actions, intonations, and sometimes silence. I immediately thought of the argument of nature vs. nurture with the introduction of the bodily hexis. Are we predisposed to behave and communicate in certain ways based on our gender (nature)? Or do we communicate based on our placement in or origin from a social class (nurture)? I found this argument fascinating. Look at any child in school. Their body and spoken language speaks volumes (no pun intended) about who they are and where they come from. If the child has not been exposed to a variety of social settings, they will not be able to compete at the same level with the students who have been exposed; hence, oooh that awful term, tracking in the education system (honors courses, leveled courses, technical track, college track, you get the picture).
So what would the linguist say about our educational system today? What would the sociologist say? And finally, what would the economist say? Bourdieu seems to combine all three into one and say the power of language is determined by the status and education of the speaker and the level of the audience. Because a lot of words could be used without very much meaning, and the speaker would sound very smart because the audience wouldn't have a clue. A bunch of nothing in a whole lot of something. Stupid Derrida and his center!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The idea of silence strikes a chord in me: "Thus the modalities of practices, the ways of looking, sitting, standing, keeping silent...('reproachful looks' or...'disapproving glances')" (51).
ReplyDeleteIn research for my thesis, I've read about the power of the Zapatista "silence" in Mexico, as they refuse to give voice to what the government instists on calling the "Indian difference."
With their silence, they resist being examples of such difference. They refuse to "play the game." They continue their revolution without need for words.
"It is as if the principle behind the ranking of class languages were nothing other than the degree of control they manifested and the intensity of the correctness they presupposed" (60). Bourdieu states that there must compliance on the part of the dominated-interesting that the Zapatista chose silence for non-compliance. I'd like to know more about this.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated Bourdieu's emphasis on the value of the audience to shape meaning ("each recipient helps to produce the message which he perceives..." (39) - synchronicity is essential for any true value to be conveyed.
ReplyDelete