Whether we like it or not, language divides. It always has and always will. Although I have known this at some level my whole life, this fact was brought to the forefront of my thinking the last time I visited the DMV. I thought I was being smart to arrive before the office opened in order to be first. Besides underestimating the wait time and the number of people who also wanted to be first, I was shocked to realize I was a "minority" of such in the waiting room. I quickly noticed that no one was speaking English. I eventually spoke to the woman next to me. She smiled, nodded, and looked to the teenage girl who accompanied her. It was obvious we were not going to converse. As more and more people arrived and others shuffled seats, I realized how segregated the room became. Even without the prompt of a class like this, it became apparent to me that this shifting of people into "common" groups was not so much about race as communication. After sitting for two hours I finally stepped to the restroom. When I returned to realize my seat had been taken, I made a deliberate choice to sit in an area where I heard my language being spoken.
One should not assert the division that language creates is bad in and of itself. The fact that a people group shares a language unique to their culture allows that group to maintain distinction. It allows people within that culture to pass down experiences and knowledge that may not be accurately described by words in another language. Throughout history, people groups have relied on language unique to their population for self-preservation--to gain military and political advantage. As Delpit states, “It is no wonder that our first language becomes intimately connected to our identity”. (p. XIX)
However, the divide that language created for Dowdy and Smith was painful. Although both excelled because of their abilities to adapt and make language work to their advantages, both resorted to being people they did not want to be. The “skin that they spoke” spoke so loudly that they—the real Dowdy and Smith—could not be heard.
For me, the great paradox is that language also unifies. History is riddled with examples of how language was used as a unifying means. The Greeks realized the importance of having a people that spoke one language in order to facilitate trade, educate their citizens, and expand their empire. In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, many immigrants to this nation took pride in learning English in order to become a part of the great melting pot. The unity that comes with a common language is what allows communication, cooperation and camaraderie. All three allow us to work together to make our society better than the one before.
It is not just the similar tones or specific linguistic code that unifies us in language. It is the message. Words are powerful. When we deem a certain language or dialect as inappropriate, we take away the voice of the people who speak that language. The notes at the end of Smith’s chapter help to validate his language. If Dowdy and Smith did not value his language they would not have included his notes. We would have been left to assign meaning to his words. Why can’t this type of integrated expression happen in our classrooms? Do we really sacrifice academic excellence if we embrace differences in language? By forcing all to be the same in their spoken tongue we divide rather than unite.
Lisa Rasey
Comments (7)
Lisa,
I have been thinking about your statement, "language unifies." And it certainly does. My roommate and I got into a discussion about it last night. She immediately said, "that's what is wrong with the US public schools." Granted, she isn't an educator, and knows very little about the subject, but I told her to continue, I wanted to hear what she had to say. She made a valid point. Many other strong nations teach other languages from a very young age. They do so explicitly. And in many ways this makes their educational systems much stronger than ours. It makes me wonder, why can't we also do that? Yes, at my school we are teaching Spanish once a week to 3-5 grades. But they aren't being immersed into it. Can you imagine how intelligent some of these kids would be if they could speak, read and write in Standard English, Ebonics and let's just say French?! They would truly be able to work and live in a globalized society.
Posted by Sarah Feinman | January 25, 2009 11:41 AM
Posted on January 25, 2009 11:41
Sarah,
You make a very valid point and the truth is are kids would be more knowledgeable, well rounded and better equipped for society if we were able and did emerge them in multiple languages. I think part of the problem that comes with that is we have become so saturated with passing the TEST that the kids miss out on so many learning experiences.
I teach More@4/EC PreK and we debate every year about when and if we should start teaching Spanish to the kids. Currently, we introduce it at the end of the year. The debate comes from not wanting to confuse the children that are having difficulty grasping language. However, at the same time we know that research shows the earlier you emerge kids in multiple languages the more likely they are to learn them.
Amy Spade
Posted by Amy Spade | January 25, 2009 12:05 PM
Posted on January 25, 2009 12:05
Lisa,
I love what you wrote. My reaction to what we read was rather desperate, focusing on the language divides aspect. Your thinking on how language unites, or the validity of a native language is so true. I spend so much time in my classroom on the power of words, those lessons need to be the power of words in any language. Perhaps what I like best is your notice of Dowdy and Smith adapting to their circumstances. The word adapt is in itself powerful. To adapt you are changing to function better in a different environment than what you are used to. Adapting is not abandoning what you are most comfortable with, rather "tweaking" it to find success in a new situation. Thank you for your thoughtful post. Langauge does not have to be a list of absolutes,does it?
Posted by Stefoni Shaw | January 25, 2009 9:09 PM
Posted on January 25, 2009 21:09
As you said, language has always had the ability to divide and unify. Take for instance a precursor to English--Latin. It was a wide-spread language that helped unite the Roman Empire. However, while it helped people from various lands communicate, it also created a divide among the socioeconomic classes. Two forms developed--one that was spoken by the elite, and one spoken by the masses. For a long time, it was used by the elite to remain in power above the proletariat (For example, early versions of the Bible were written so that the masses could not read; therefore, they had to depend on the elite for "salvation.")
The point is, regardless of what language is spoken, it could always be used to divide. It will not always be English. I mean, Latin was a very powerful language for centuries, but today it is not even a spoken language.
Posted by Heather Coe | January 26, 2009 4:27 PM
Posted on January 26, 2009 16:27
Language unites? This is an interesting idea, and I have thought many times about whether language, race, etc. are dividing factors or uniting factors. I believe that language can have the type of impact we expect it to have on people and society. If we choose to create divisions based on language, then it is divisive. However, if we can educate others and attempt to communicate in various languages, we can unite.
I have visited Mexico twice in the past year, and although I have visited the "tourist" spots, I have at least attempted to speak Spanish to natives of the area. I am not fluent; however, I have the ability to communicate. It is an interesting experience to go and watch the faces of local Mexicans light up just because you attempted to speak their language. So often, here in the United States and even in Spanish-speaking countries, we go and expect them to learn or attempt to communicate in our language. Even though I completely butchered several phrases and words, they were glad to assist and appreciative of my respect for their culture and language.
Posted by Brittany Guy | January 26, 2009 5:41 PM
Posted on January 26, 2009 17:41
Lisa,
Your blog response was very insightful and instantly made me think of the Babylonians. I know that this is not a religion class, but as I read your response I immediately thought of God and The Tower of Babel. In this case language was a unifier and a divider. For those of you who don't know the story, according to the Bible, all men spoke the same language until the people decided to build a tower. Apparently the people wanted to build a tower so immense that it reached to heaven and those that built it would be likened to gods. Before the tower and in the beginning stages of the tower all the people spoke the same language. But as the tower grew and the people became more arrogant and self-absorbed, God confused their language so that no man understood another. Thus the building of the tower ceased. Very interesting......
Posted by Anonymous | January 26, 2009 11:09 PM
Posted on January 26, 2009 23:09
Lisa,
What a provocative post you have here. What really struck me was your observation about yourself as a minority, how it felt to be surrounded by something so foreign, and how you chose to "segregate" yourself. It gives much insight into how immigrants feel in any non-native country, not just the US.
I think the ebb and flow of language unifying and dividing from an historical perspective is something important for us to remember. I'm glad you prompted your colleagues to share other examples of that. It speaks to the idea of language being political -- as well as social and cultural.
Posted by Alecia Jackson | January 27, 2009 11:41 AM
Posted on January 27, 2009 11:41