E367: Writing and Diversity

Borders Do Not Define Us.

Gloria Anzaldua’s “How to Tame a Wild Tongue” confronts the restrictive borders of language that she has faced throughout her life. Growing up as a Chicano, Anzaldua found a sense of self within multiple cultures and often spoke a blend of English and Spanish. Chicano Spanish is a blend of languages and it “sprang out of the Chicanos’ need to identify [themselves] as a distinct people”. Obviously, language and identify are interconnected, especially for the Chicano people. Discourse helps the Chicano people feel connected to each other. For Anzaldua, speaking Chicano is her way of distinguishing herself from others and embracing her bilingualism. However, she has struggled with finding a sense of belonging in the Chicano culture because she was constantly reminded that “Chicano” does not fit a national identity.

“Chicana feminists often skirt around each other with suspicion and hesitation. For the longest time, I couldn’t figure it out. Then it dawned on me. To be close to another Chicana is like looking into the mirror. We are afraid of what we’ll see there. Pena. Shame. Low estimation of self”.

Here, Anzaldua is admitting that Chicanos are afraid to see their own reflections in fear of perceiving the illegitimacy of Chicano culture. Their beliefs about language come from others who fit into a specific culture identity. Similarly to Min-Zhan Lu, Anzaldua feels silenced by society. Although Anzaldua feels ashamed in public, she has an intrinsic sense of pride in her “synergy of two cultures” that no one can take away from her. Obviously, Anzaldua cannot disguise her Chicano pride when she describes how the “corridos” songs make her feel:

“Yet I couldn’t stop my feet from thumping to the music, could not stop humming the words, nor hide from myself the exhilaration I felt when I heard it”.

This internal conflict between shame and pride, identity and invalidation, shows the power of language and the control it has over a group of people.

“How to Tame a Wild Tongue” is a symbolic piece illustrating the role language plays in Anzaldua’s identity. She fully embraces her Chicano culture and refutes dominant culture through her usage of “Spanglish” throughout the essay. Anzaldua’s contribution to the discussion about language and identity gives us a new perspective, that advances the conversation in a unique way. Anzaldua feels that as long as she is conforming to dominant culture by suppressing her ability to “switch codes”, she cannot take pride in herself because she believes “I am my language”. Everyone has a right to discourse and a right to their sense of belonging, regardless of these fabricated borders.

Social Identities

In Gloria Anzaldua’s “How to Tame a Wild Tongue”, she is concerned with an assorted view of topics, such as; nations, cultures, classes, genders, languages. She is arguing in which the ways that identity is tied into the way that we speak. She is also stating that people can be made to feel ashamed in their own skin. This could be seen as hurting someone’s sense of face or in other terms their social identity. I found it empowering to see that she had struggles through her since of language and native tongue, she had to suppress her native language in order to get through life in America. This is something that I have had to internalize and deal with since I am from the west coast.

“Until I can take pride in my language, I cannot take pride in myself. Until I can accept as legitimate Chicano Texas, Tex-Mex, and all the other languages I speak, I cannot accept the legitimacy of Myself. Until I am free to write bilingually and to switch codes without having always to translate, while I still have to speak English or Spanish when I would rather speak Spanglish, and as long as I have to accommodate the English speakers rather than having them accommodate me, my tongue will be illegitimate.” (Anzaldua 38)

I like this because it connects to the quote before this one. Through this essay, she tells her story and the realizations she’s made to become the person she is today. This shows how much she grew and realized through the experiences of not being able to be herself. This really is my favorite quote because it can apply to everyone. It just means that you have to be proud of where you came from and your origins in order to truly be proud of who you are. Everyone has different identities and ones that can be utilized in certain situations and some that can’t. For example for myself being from California I am unable to communicate in the ways that I do with my friends back home while I am talking to my friends here. This is because the style of talk back home is much slower and different slang. This is not a negative thing it is just something that I have to be conscious about when communicating with others. Identities are awesome and I feel as if it is something that us humans are working on non stop throughout most of our existence.

Tara Lockhart’s Piece on Anzaldúa

I was instructed to read Tara Lockhart’s piece:

“Writing the Self: Gloria Anzaldúa, Textual Form, and Feminist Epistemology”

along with Anzaldúa’s piece, to make connections between the two, and to analyze Lockhart’s view on Anzaldúa’s story through a more feminist, textural lens. The link to Lockhart’s piece is found below if you want to give it a look:

Link

Being at A Crossroads & Being One Herself

“Who is to say that robbing a people of its language is less violent than war?”

-Ray Gwyn Smith

Gloria Anzaldúa’s piece is one filled with raw emotions, harsh criticisms of language and the way we use it, and an exploration of her inner-self and how she has coped with the hardships she has faced being a Chicana woman.

Growing up on the physical borderland of the Texas-US Southwest/Mexican border, Anzaldúa lived in a place she called a “place of contradiction where hatred, anger, and exploitation are part of the landscape but also where she finds a certain joy, especially at the unique positioning consciousness takes at the confluent streams.” (page 356). Anzaldúa grew up in a place where she was reprimanded for speaking Spanish on the playground and was told to control her Spanish tongue in order to seem more professional and to be respected in a society that did not understand her and her people.

Anzaldúa lived her life constantly grappling with the many languages and dialects she was able to speak such as Standard English, Tex-Mex, and Standard Spanish. For her, Tex-Mex was her preferred language – it made her feel welcomed and at home. She was often told by other people that her Chicano Spanish was incorrect, when really, it was a border tongue which developed naturally; it was a living language. (358)

The thing about being a Chicano is that if a person has a low estimation of her native tongue, they automatically have a low estimation of her. (361) From the other readings we have looked at in class, we can understand that this is very specific to people who do not speak English or even “proper” English dialects. Anzaldúa experiences language as a monumental part of who she is.

“I am my language.”

-Anzaldúa (362)

When looking at Tara Lockhart’s analysis of Anzaldúa’s piece in “Writing the Self: Gloria Anzaldúa, Textual Form, and Feminist Epistemology”, she offers insights of how Anzaldúa’s switching between English and Spanish throughout the piece is meant to be a strong, polemical statement. Reading Anzaldúa’s piece, I noticed how powerful it was because of the fact that it integrated both English and Spanish so effortlessly, showcasing Anzaldúa’s familiarity with both languages, and somehow making the reader uncomfortable in a way that Anzaldúa definitely meant to do. Her incorporating Spanish was to make English-only-speaking readers confront their own limitations and turn them into the “other” – something that they may feel as though they cannot identify with if they consider themselves a part of the dominant culture.

An important, interesting aspect of Anzaldúa’s piece that Lockhart brings to light is the fact that Anzaldúa’s essay is formatted in a way that she utilizes many page breaks and uses the white space to her advantage.

“Patches of speech and ideas are simultaneously held apart for contemplation.”

-Tara Lockhart

Anzaldúa uses these page breaks to make the reader pause and think about what she has just discussed, especially when she incorporates Spanish into the piece – she wants the reader to feel uncomfortable, to feel confusion, to feel the raw emotion Anzaldúa is emitting at being at a crossroads and ultimately, being a crossroad of multiple identities and languages herself.

I’ll end my response with a quote from Lockhart that caught my eye and for me, really captured Anzaldúa’s message:

“Chicanos are held together by their differences and this realization and recognition of difference is crucial to hybrid identity.”

-Tara Lockhart

Class, Mon, 9/16

Gee, Discourse

James Paul Gee argues for the usefulness of thinking in terms of discourses rather than languages or codes or literacies. I’d like us to spend our time today thinking about what doing this might mean. Let’s start by trying to figure out exactly what Gee means by discourse—and what the differences between a primary and secondary discourse are. Here are some terms I highlighted in my rereading of the first half (pp. 5–9) of his essay:

social practice, saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations, ways of being, identity kit, second language, enculturation, apprenticeship, conflict and tension, primary or home discourse, family, clan, peer group, non-home-based institutions, secondary discourse, dominant and nondominant, interfere and transfer, literacy as mastery of a secondary discourse

Groups

With a partner (or two): See if you can use these terms to define what you think Gee might mean by discourse, primary discourse, and secondary discourse. Pay particular attention to terms that you find hard to integrate into your definitions. Why do these terms pose problems for you?

Fastwrite

Think back to your reading of Lu, Mellix, Pratt, and/or Lambeth. Are there any ways in which Gee’s idea of discourse helps you see their work in new ways? Are there any ways in which their stories and ideas pose problems for Gee?

To Do

Mon, 9/16, 4:00 pm: Group C posts responses to Gloria Anzaldúa’s “How to Tame a Wild Tongue”.
Tues, 9/17, 4:00 pm: Everyone else reads Group C’s responses and posts comments on at least two.
Wed, 9/18, class: We will use those responses and comments to structure our class discussion of Anzaldúa.
Wed, 9/18, 4:00 pm: Group A posts responses to Richard Rodriguez’s “The Achievement of Desire”.
Thurs, 9/19, 4:00 pm: Everyone else reads Group A’s responses and posts comments on at least two.
Fri, 9/13, class: We will use those responses and comments to structure our class discussion of Rodriguez.
Mon, 9/23, class: Read Jay Dolmage’s “Breathe Upon Us”. I will lead our discussion.

Class, Fri, 9/13

Relating Mellix and Lu

Fastwrite

You might see Barbara Mellix and Min Lu as telling very similar stories— stories about the gaps between the discourses of “Home” and “School”, and the struggles that they experienced in shifting between them. In such a view, the only real differences between their two stories are the details, the particulars: South Carolina or Shanghai, the speech of “country coloreds” or the language of the “great books”, the University of Pittsburgh or the Revolutionary Workers School, and so on.

But is that really the case? Are Mellix and Lu really arguing the same thing, just with different examples? Or are there differences we might point to between the stances they take toward learning to write, toward mastering the discourse of school? Take a few minutes to see if you can identify some possible points of disagreement between the two pieces.

Language, Power, and Identity

John and Bridget respond to Mellix
Kate and Amanda respond to Lu

Of Interest

“Flagships Fail on Financial Equity“, Inside Higher Education, 9/12/2019.

To Do

Mon, 9/16, class: Read James Paul Gee’s “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics”. I will lead our discussion. I will want to make sure you feel you understand what Gee means by “primary” and “secondary” discourses, and to see if those concepts can help us better understand the pieces we’ve read so far
Mon, 9/16, 4:00 pm: Group C posts responses to Gloria Anzaldúa’s “How to Tame a Wild Tongue”.
Tues, 9/17, 4:00 pm: Everyone else reads Group C’s responses and posts comments on at least two.
Wed, 9/18, 9/13, class: We will use those responses and comments to structure our class discussion of Anzaldúa.
Wed, 9/18, 4:00 pm: Group A posts responses to Richard Rodriguez’s “The Achievement of Desire”.
Thurs, 9/19, 4:00 pm: Everyone else reads Group A’s responses and posts comments on at least two.
Fri, 9/13, class: We will use those responses and comments to structure our class discussion of Rodriguez.

Fear of the Language vs. Content

Min-Zhan Lu’s experience with language selection differs greatly from the other examples so far this semester. Opposed to the desire for people to feel comfortable expressing themselves using their native dialect, as a young child Lu was urged to use three different languages. More interestingly, Lu’s home language was the furthest from the native language of the area. The native language, Shanghai, was only to be used with the servants because that was all they could speak and was quickly being replaced with Standard Chinese, which she used in school. Her parents urged Lu to use English because they believed it was the language that would cause the most success.

“My grandmother reminisced constantly about how she had slaved and saved to send my father to a first-rate missionary school. And we were made to understand that it was my father’s fluent English that had opened the door to his success.”
Lu, “From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle”

An issue seen in American culture is fear of expression for different cultures in certain areas. It is remarkable that Lu had the same emotions around this issue, but her experience was the exact opposite. A language that was not even her native language became her home language, and then suddenly she was persuaded away from using it anymore. It was fascinating that as soon as Lu grew older, she realized the political climate change. English, once being the language that offered a brighter future, became the language of the “Bourgeois.” It was frowned upon to use anything other than Standard Chinese because of judgement from the “working class.” She felt uncomfortable using English because people would assume she felt more superior. She says, “From then on, I took care not to use English outside home and to conceal my knowledge of English from my new classmates.” This brings up some important questions. Why is it that using a certain language can be met with such strongly opposing cultural opinion, resulting in fear for the speaker or the audience? Why is it the way that something is said is focused on, and not the content of what is being said?

Love in red

Min-Zhan Lu discusses in her piece, “From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle”, the various discourses of language and their impact on her and her writing. Lu begins by sharing her experience with multiple languages and their preferred audiences: Shanghai dialect with her servants, Standard Chinese at school, and English when at home with her family. Her family’s push to learn English was a means to ensure Lu and her sisters were well educated, as well as to keep Lu grounded from the attempts of Communist persuasion being taught at school. Therefore, this language was only to be spoken and practiced at home. While in school, Lu was regularly reinforced on the value of having pride in both the Chinese nation, as well as her political values. These two differing ideologies forced Lu to learn to read and write under certain discourses and for certain audiences. Early on in the piece, Lu shares the connections she finds between her two main languages and yet, how they differ. She brings up a reoccurring theme of “red” between both discourses and how she perceives it.

“One day I would be making a sentence at school: ‘The national flag of China is red.’ The next day I would recite at home, ‘My love is like a red, red rose.’…’Love’ was my love for my mother at home and my love for my ‘motherland’ at school” (Lu pg.439).

This quote was particularly striking to me in that Lu clearly emphasizes a huge parallel between not only her two languages, but the two identities that coincide with them. The word “red” has an entirely different connotation depending on the environment in which it is being taught in. In school, this word embodies the power of China and its pride in their politics. When learning this word in Standard Chinese, one was expected to know that these were the associations that went alongside it. This word in English, however, brought feelings of love and beauty in a sort of softer sense, one in which Lu compares to her mother. I find this one example of how a simple color can take on two entirely different meanings to Lu, yet still in some way show a connection between her two discourses, to encompass entirely Lu’s main argument of the accomplishments that came out of her complex learning experience. Lu is able to successfully and meaningfully bring together two discourses, by comparing them to a love she shares for each of them, while also keeping them separate upon necessary audiences, specifically by keeping those loves separate.

Red is Red

Language serves as both a tool for a unification and as a means for separation. The relationships between different identities associated with language and dialects often fail to mix seamlessly, as discussed in Barbara Mellix’s piece examined in class. This leads to a confusion of identity due to the constant need to change oneself in order to fit the impossible standards set by society for that particular environment. Instead of examining the segregated nature of language identities, Min-Zhan Lu explores the areas where these language identities interact and intersect in “From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle.” Lu discusses how language ties into education, class, and personal identity in ways which overlap and change over time.

Growing up “as a student in China,” Lu was quick to notice the differences between her identities categorized by the languages she used for each (437). She spoke English with her immediate family and tutor, “Shanghai dialect only with the servants,” and Standard Chinese at school (438). Despite the difference in language, Lu had little difficulty flipping between identities. Instead of feeling as though she was losing a piece of herself each time she was forced to speak differently, Lu discovered an overlap in language identities. Lu’s life sits at the intersection of language and culture. Instead of a wall separating her identities, Lu’s life is more of an intersection where all of her experiences meet and interact. She explains how what she learned in her English lessons “seemed to enhance and reinforce what [Lu] was learning” while in the classroom (439). This demonstrates the link between languages, which is not always obvious at first. Though English and Chinese differ heavily from each other, both having different roots and alphabets, the two languages are undeniably woven together. As Lu explains, “red” in Chinese and in English “[correspond] to the patch of color printed next to the world” (439). Although the two languages certainly look and sound different, the core ideas are shared. The color red is called something different in different languages, yet the color remains the same. Yet again, the languages are able to intersect and coexist instead of directly contradicting each other.

As she continued to grow, Min-Zhan Lu’s connections between her different language identities became more complicated. During this period of time, China was politically and socially uneasy. English was labelled as the language of the enemy due to tensions between the Chinese and the “American and British Imperialists” (439). The animosity between the countries lead to English being labelled as a language of the enemy for a period of time. At the same time, Lu picked up a new language, one made up of definitions taught in school. For Lu, “red” was no longer just a color. In school, “red” became “Revolution at school, ‘the Commies’ at home, and adultery in The Scarlet Letter” (441). The culture surrounding Lu resulted in a simple word carrying a variety of meanings in all of the languages making up her identity. However, despite the difference in secondary meanings, the word “red” and all of its translations still describes the same color. So despite the differences in culture, despite the differences in language, Lu’s identities were still entangled with one another, even if the threads became a bit mangled and distorted.

Though Lu’s relationship with language and identity is complicated, especially in regards to her education, family, and personal identity, there is an undeniable intersection where all of these elements mix. Language is not as simple as different sections with rigid borders between different languages. Instead, there is a special fluidity demonstrated by Lu and her identities which connects people.

Min-Zhan Lu Response Post (Group B)

In Min-Zhan Lu’s piece From Silence to Words: Writing as Struggle, she talks about her struggles with the use of language in different situations and her family’s struggles during the Cultural Revolution. She tried hard to distinguish her “language of home” and her “language of school”. Lu’s report in school particularly showed the wedge she drove between her two languages. Lu goes on to tell that even her daughter faces a struggle that is a bit more toned down. “ Not long ago, my daughter told me that it bothered her to hear her friend “talk wrong.”” Lu’s daughter had heard her friends and some teachers speaking improperly by saying words like “ain’t”. The daughter’s struggle is smaller in comparison to what her mother went through having to distinguish between her two languages.

I feel that the part where Lu talks about her “language of home” and her “language of school” is very similar to when Barbara Mellix talks about the two different types of english that she speaks at home versus at school. Both of these writers have to distinguish between the language that they are comfortable with and the language they use outside the house.

I can connect to Lu’s piece because of my many years of having taken Italian courses. While I can not speak Italian fluently, I can make small talk and have simple conversations. When I traveled to Italy, I noticed that many people speak english or they speak italian with a different dialect than I was taught. When having a conversation with someone over there, I could not make out much of what he was talking about. I felt very uncomfortable just as Mellix did when having to speak proper english. I also felt that I could relate to Lu’s struggles in differentiation of language because of the amount of times during Italian class that I needed to speak english to ask for confirmation of something. While I did not have difficulties differentiating, I still felt that it was not correct to use english in that class.