language – E367: Writing and Diversity

Keeping Your Attention

I hate watching videos.

Anything longer than a ten-minute Youtube video rapidly loses my attention and never regains it. Due to this, as I am sure you can imagine, I was not exactly thrilled when I learned I had to respond to an hour-long video. Despite my initial apprehension, I tried my best to focus on the debate. Thankfully, this proved to be much easier than I assumed it would be.

My willingness to pay attention to James Baldwin’s speech is probably due to a variety factors. For example, he speaks eloquently and clearly in a way which demands attention. However, what I find to be most compelling is Baldwin’s frequent use of the second person.

Using the word “you” is a complex choice few writers choose to make. This is due to the power of the word. The omission of “you” allows for the audience to distance themselves from the content provided. It is easy to pretend the speaker is talking to the person next to you instead. In the beginning of his speech, Baldwin allows this to happen, as he starts his speech using the more academic “one” instead of “you.” Baldwin distances the audience by saying, “I feel has to do with one’s point of view. I have to put it that way – one’s sense, one’s system of reality.” (15:23-15:32). This way, he is able to start to gain the respect from his audience without spooking them right away.

This is a more comfortable way to live, always pretending like you have nothing to do with the content. However, in using “you,” the author (or speaker, in this case), forces the audience to live through the content.

Baldwin does not allow for a single audience member to escape the narrative he weaves. When he says “you” he means everyone listening. This is prevalent later on in the speech. Though it is impossible to live through the racism experienced by people of color as a white person, Baldwin does his best to put you in his shoes.

“This means, in the case of an American Negro, born in that glittering republic, and the moment you are born, since you don’t know any better, every stick and stone and every face is white.And since you have not yet seen a mirror, you suppose that you are, too. It comes as a great shock around the age of 5, or 6, or 7, to discover that the flag to which you have pledged allegiance, along with everybody else, has not pledged allegiance to you. It comes as a great shock to discover that Gary Cooper killing off the Indians, when you were rooting for Gary Cooper, that the Indians were you. It comes as a great shock to discover that the country which is your birthplace and to which you owe your life and your identity, has not, in its whole system of reality, evolved any place for you. The disaffection, the demoralization, and the gap between one person and another only on the basis of the color of their skin, begins there and accelerates – accelerates throughout a whole lifetime – to the present when you realize you’re thirty and are having a terrible time managing to trust your countrymen”
(18:21-19:45).

The other positive (or danger, depending upon the person you ask) of using “you” is the type of sentences it forms. When Baldwin uses the word, he is not asking you to think about his content. Instead, he is demanding that you do so. By using “you” Baldwin forces the audience to listen, as he is the one in charge of its collective fates. This choice makes the audience into characters in his story, forcing the audience to feel the speech instead of just listening to Baldwin speak.

So despite all of the issues stacked against Baldwin, in the past and present, he is able to methodically involve the audience through his use of “you” within his speech. This leads to an effective and memorable argument. Though his argument is clean, logical, and passionate, it is his use of “you” that takes this speech to a new level.

(For the sake of quoting, I used a transcript of Baldwin’s speech which can be found here: https://www.rimaregas.com/2015/06/07/transcript-james-baldwin-debates-william-f-buckley-1965-blog42/ )

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.

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.

Same Animal, Different Beast, One Language

Barbara Mellix’s “From Outside, In” was what I thought to be a very interesting response to a cultural difference that has been taking place in America since the very first slave traders began to bring men and women over to the colonies. She begins immediately by describing the difference between “Black English” and “Standard English.” Mellix explains that how when she is around her immediate nucleic family she feels comfortable to speak in what she considers her native tongue of Black English. When she is at an event involving more distant family members or people that she does not know, she tries her best to speak in Standard English. Interestingly, she notes that her immediate family is always uncomfortable when it comes to speaking Standard English. She goes in to detail about her father speaking when she writes,

“My father was more articulate, more aggressive. He spoke quickly, his words sharp and clear. But he held his proud head higher, a signal that he, too, was uncomfortable.” (Mellix, 259, p 3)

I found this to be a fascinating description because of how uncomfortable and how distinct she believed the difference in the dialects to be. Both parties involved are speaking English and, yet, Mellix and the rest of her family, all of whom know how to use Standard English, seem to be almost wildly uncomfortable when they are not using their “native tongue.” This still goes on today. I have many friends who live in more urban areas than myself and when I visit them, the dialect is different – different words, words being used in other fashions. It is striking how distinct the differences are.

To continue, Mellix goes on to discuss her journey with Standard English in a college classroom when she found herself in an entry-level composition class at the University of Pittsburgh. Barbara Mellix initially describes her experiences in the class as,

“Each experience of writing was like standing naked and revealing my imperfection, my ‘otherness’.” (Mellix 264, p 2)

Quite obviously, Mellix is very comfortable with Standard English and she writes with incredible talent, however, she is very uncomfortable being able to utilize her ability to go back and forth between using Black and Standard English with ease in the early stages of her writing. I believe this to be intriguing because of mastery of the English language in which she writes with. She demonstrates her elite writing talent but has come so far from an entirely different dialect of the English language being able to write and speak as well as she does.

Language and Assimilation

Assimilation is the concept of homogenizing a minority group or culture with the dominant culture. An Immigrant is supposed to, over time, become like those in the society they move to. This could also extend to those who are born into a society and are pressured to stay within the perimeters of the culture that is most rewarded in that society. Assimilation can be debated as a something unifying and natural, or as something culturally genocidal and forced—a means to erase differences and multiculturalism. These arguments can be seen within the use of language as a means of assimilating.

On one hand, language can be unifying—a means for communication and understanding. Language is what connects us to each other—verbal or nonverbal. People who live millions of miles apart can still connect with each other through a shared language. However, a dominant language can be used to weed out minority languages as a means of acculturation. Language and how someone speaks that language is highly tied to someone’s culture and background. In the 19^th and 20^th centuries, the Canadian government forcibly assimilated the indigenous people that lived in the country. Alongside measures to stop traditional marriage practices and spiritual ceremonies, the government also enacted an extensive residential school system to target indigenous children. They were abused, forced into arranged marriages after graduation, and prohibited from speaking their native language. Once a language is targeted and erased, the minority culture can no longer communicate with each other the way they used to and thus cannot relate to their past culture the way they used to.

Today in the United States, there aren’t horror stories of such proportions—hopefully—anymore, but there is an effort and pressure for efficacy in speaking the dominant language—English. This pressure is not directed or dictated formally, but as a means of advancement and “fitting in.” Think of it like joining a new friend group and having to learn what type of humor they have or how they all talk to each other—except on a more communal or national scale. The U.S. doesn’t have an official language, but the dominant language is English and without learning and proficiently speaking or writing can keep many from advancing within the society—either socially, economically, or academically. In Barbara Mellix’s From Outside, In, she spoke about her experience of growing up in a Southern black community and how her family and neighbors spoke “black English”, but when moving out of this community or encountering white Americans—even if they spoke similar to her—steered her away from the vernacular she grew up speaking. She moved to Pittsburgh and had to conform to how that community spoke because she felt she would have been ostracized or possibly punished for her “improper English.” She also makes a points within her piece about how “proper English” is pushed in education.

In America’s education system, the main language that is being taught in classrooms is English—“proper English.” There are Language Immersion programs where children can learn another language aside from English, but the learning revolves around English. Usually math is the secondary language while English is reading and writing. Because of this tie to English and education, there is a subconscious link to believing more proficiency in English, knowing large words and understanding grammatical rules, means someone is more intelligent and educated. Of course, knowing many of languages, being bilingual, could also provide a sense of intelligence and education, but these extra languages are not “useful” in the sense of a dominant culture.

Thinking about education and language led to thinking about the language that dominates Academia and many academic papers. Can language assimilation happen within this sphere as well? Can this concept be applied to this community? Academia is not a dominant culture, but say someone is trying to write a research paper and have it published in a prestigious journal. This person has never written a research paper before on such a level. What would they have to change about their language to be accepted into this culture? Would even a paper written in a language similar to or in “black English” be accepted or taken as seriously as a paper that was bloated with three syllable vocabulary and convoluted grammatical techniques—even if one was more understandable than the more traditional and accepted language? Would you have taken this essay seriously if I wrote in “improper English?”