I think we would all agree that there is a language of the powerful. Yet, we must consider in our roles as teachers, writers, editors, mothers: should we work to promote (or condone) the hierarchal system of language or do we enable the power-less to speak and write in their own vernacular?
Stanley Fish writes in his blog, “It may be true that the standard language is an instrument of power and a device for protecting the status quo, but that very truth is a reason for teaching it to students who are being prepared for entry into the world as it now is rather than the world as it might be in some utopian imagination—all dialects equal, all habit of speech and writing equally rewarded.”
Fish is right when he states, “You are not going to be able to change the world if you are not equipped with the tools that speak to its present condition. You don’t strike a blow against a power structure by making yourself vulnerable to its prejudices.” If you are not in the same room or speaking the same language, it is easy to be ignored by those who clutch power within their sweaty fists. And, yes, when you give someone the opportunity to judge you immediately on your form, they are less apt to keep their ears and eyes open long enough to consider your ideas or arguments.
Yet, don’t we become a part of the power structure when we surrender to the required forms? We also unwillingly (or willingly) accept that language should exclude people and protect the status quo. Fish highlighted an organization in his blog, the ACTA co-founded by Lynne Cheney. The group seeks a standard way of teaching and specific, core topics at the university-level. Fish describes one angle of their argument expressed in a formal report that “says teach the subject matter so that it points in a particular ideological direction, the direction of traditional values and a stable canon . . . they see themselves as warriors in the culture wars. The battle they are fighting in the report is over the core curriculum, the defense of which is for them a moral as well as an educational imperative as it is for those who oppose it.”
What if a power structure surrendered to the language of the people? I must admit that I’m one of those rare feminists who is still a practicing Catholic, and one of the Church’s beautiful moments—in a long and flawed history—was when they gave up the exclusionary language of Latin and embraced the vernacular languages of people all over the world. (It is pretty smart marketing, too, considering the best way to connect with your audience.)
However, I don’t think it is worth waiting for the other patriarchies of the world to freely relinquish their power. I also think that communication requires us to agree upon some standards, otherwise we are only talking or writing to ourselves. And, while I don’t think that grammar should be used in a punitive or mocking way (I do sheepishily enjoy poking fun at inappropriate apostrophes), I also agree that no one should pretend that “da bomb” is a complete sentence.
Before we get mired in this crazy web of considerations and ideals, we should acknowledge the work of Dr. Linda Flower. Flower theorizes (and practices) on the empowerment ability of intercultural discourse. She recognizes that the “power-less” must know and use the language of the power-full to gain entry into the larger conversation. Once they are part of the conversation and people are listening, the once power-less can incorporate and integrate their own modes of communication to a more captive audience. Flower bases some of her theories on the work of Gloria Anzaldúa who wrote of the idea of “borders” and “border thinking,” using the Mexican-American border as a metaphor. Through her writings, Anzaldúa shows how to use language to bridge the border gaps, create intercultural connections and to empower the power-less. Best of all, these ideas don't just exist in someone's "utopian imagination." Flower has been exercising these very ideals into real action in the urban neighborhoods of Pittsburgh with remarkable results.
"I am an act of kneading, of uniting and joining that not only has produced both a creature of darkness and a creature of light, but also a creature that questions the definitions of light and dark and gives them new meanings." — Gloria Anzaldúa
No comments:
Post a Comment