A Correlation between Unequal Power Relations and the Way Language is Used - Assignment Example

A Correlation between Unequal Power Relations and the Way Language is Used It is not only interesting but also of great significance that verbal communication among the members of the human community essentially has three stages. The first of them is the idea that the speaker / writer wishes to convey. It is, in fact, the silent part of communication – the conceptual stage. The next is the speaker’s / writer’s choice of words which, as per his discretion and belief, convey the idea most effectively. The last is the sense in which the listener / reader receives them and interprets to himself what he has heard. The significance of these stages is that the original idea is, in all likeliness, prone to a certain extent of damage and distortion while it passes through them. The second of the three stages is all the more important because it has a lot to do with one’s spontaneity and judgement which ultimately become the major deciding factors in making the communication successful and effective. That is how the world draws the line of distinction between ‘great orators / authors’ and the mediocre and the bad. The choice of words, however, is a function of one’s instincts, emotions and needs. The desire to dominate, to control, to feel powerful is a universal instinct that defies the boundaries of time and space. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that this basic instinct, or rather a base instinct, successfully manages to creep into all human transactions and manifests itself, more noticeably in the process of verbal communication. But, at the same time, the need to ‘get things done’ is also a matter of uppermost concern, and its importance cannot be understated. It is this factor that has the power to suppress the urge to dominate; it makes one willing to subordinate himself in a transaction. In any given instance, it is either the urge to dominate or the need to subordinate that finally stays, and it is decided by the prevailing equation of power in the given context. It boils down to the conclusion that “our words are never neutral; they carry the power that reflects the interests of those who speak or write.” (John Fiske, 1994; Fowler, et. al., 1979) An interesting quality of dominant discourse is that it usually represents and reinforces the interests of the elite section of the society. Professor Sue L. T. McGregor, in Critical Discourse Analysis – A Primer, says, “One of the central attributes of dominant discourse is its power to interpret conditions, issues and events in favour of the elite.” To take an example, in the Indian subcontinent, naxalism is a problem found in most parts, especially in those areas inhabited by tribal population. The ideology of naxalism has its roots in the principles of communism advocated by Karl Marx and Lenin. The groups resorting to violence against landlords are usually antagonistic to the institution of democratic governance. The issue as such requires to be studied in social, political and economic contexts, in order to be comprehensively understood and resolved. Surprisingly, successive governments regard it solely as a problem of law and order, knowing fully well it isn’t. Various political groups tend to display a fluctuating attitude towards the problem depending on whether they are in the power or out of power. Violent encounters between the so-called anti-social elements called naxalites and the police are common and frequent. The way things are reported (about this regular incidence of violence) in the print media and the electronic media is understandable from the perspective presented by Professor Sue McGregor. The reports almost unanimously support the State’s violence and in unequivocal terms, condemn the unimaginative adventures of the naxals. Needless to say, the media by and large is controlled by the elite group, which consciously identifies itself with the landlords. That the sympathies of the media, in this particular front, are always with the State and not with the less privileged and the marginalized is again understandable. The use of language in the headlines when a couple of policemen are killed by a landmine set by the naxals is so visibly different from the rejoicing tone in the headlines when a group of naxals are shot dead. The latter instance is reported with such enthusiasm that the gullible general public is led to understand and appreciate the sacrifices of the State machinery for the purpose of upholding democratic and constitutional values. This is neither to present a cynical account of democracy nor to endorse the apparently thoughtless deeds of the less fortunate, but just to illustrate how power-seeking groups manipulate language to their advantage and how the planned use of language plays a crucial role in consolidating power and helping it to stay. It is a case of a clever argumentative technique in which the argument is won even before it has begun. Television Talk Shows present an amusing situation in which the participants, on many an occasion, are at the mercy of the host. It is the host who is required to initiate the debate. It is not just a question of being a moderator. He is the one who has it in his power to make the participant shy away from voicing his opinions freely. The way the moderator initiates the discussion can make the participant bolder or can put him on the defensive. The inclinations and prejudices of the media are an acknowledged fact and language is the device they employ to validate those inclinations. The apparent purpose of a talk show is to provide a neutral platform where contradicting voices can make themselves heard. The participants in the talk show and their effectiveness are supposed to decide the outcome of the debate. The hard fact, however, is that it is the host who calls the shots and not the participants. The power of language makes the expression ‘objective journalism’ an oxymoron. To quote William Shakespeare, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” In these words, there is not just poetic beauty, but something of more practical value. The various roles one plays are decided mostly by power relations. So, it is the same man who plays son to his parents, father to his children, subordinate to his boss, master to his servant, husband to his wife, friend to his neighbour, so on and so forth. As he deals with different people in these roles, his needs and the amount of freedom he can avail vary considerably. The choice of language too, varies accordingly. In a given situation, we may intend to dominate, or to be subordinate or polite or aggressive or assertive. It is easier said than done. Sometimes the output of our communication can be the opposite of what we have wanted it to be. It can happen due to several factors like age, gender, maturity, outlook, race, social and cultural background, voice quality, accent and of course, language skills. The way one interprets the substance of a segment of communication is also a function of all these. This can be illustrated from the example of the plight of people from the north-eastern part of India. Though they are no less talented than the people in the rest of the country, they find it difficult to impress the mainstream. It is partly due to their oriental looks and partly due to the “all – that – is – west – is – beautiful” attitude of majority of Indians, the attitude itself being the consequence of India’s colonial background. The most striking aspect of this observation is that it is the language barrier in the form of discomfort with ‘Hindi’ that keeps the people from the northeast less powerful. (Nikita Doval in The Week) The elements of language, like spelling and pronunciation, can constitute indications of power. The people of Britain, a formidable political and economic power in the bygone era, naturally take pride in the fact that English is their mother tongue. They, understandably, believe that what is spoken in England is the ‘standard’ English. It explains why they would consider Oxford or Cambridge dictionary as being superior to Webster. Not only the British, but the people of the former British colonies as well, still have the perception that American English is corrupt and rotten. It is, therefore, unacceptable to find words like ‘color, behavior’ or ‘favorite’ in print. They amount to bad spelling. Vocabulary items like ‘candy’ and ‘cookie’ are odd and must be replaced by ‘chocolate’ and ‘biscuit’. However, with the changes in the structure of the world that time has brought about, the power centre has shifted from Europe to the other side of the Atlantic, and things have taken a one-hundred-and-eighty-degree turn. So, in the new scenario, familiarity with the American accent becomes a basic qualification for employment in the third world countries. So we hear more people in the present generation saying ‘skedule’ and fewer clinging to the traditional ‘schedule’. True, Desmond Tutu’s father said, “Don’t raise your voice. Improve your argument”. Yet, the fact remains that raising the voice gives the speaker an edge. It is a technique commonly employed by the participants in group discussions. Even if it doesn’t project the point quite rationally, at least, it provides the speaker an immediate identity and puts him on strong ground. People, whether or not they like it, are indeed influenced by loudness, and for a while, it signals confidence, conviction and authority. If there is one thing that can effortlessly and silently dominate a loud voice, it is humour. A polite tone, filled with humour, can instantly dilute the power of a statement made in the most authoritative tone. If a remark like “half of the people in this House are idiots” hurts the members present, it is possible to withdraw the statement very humorously, saying, “half of the people in this House are not idiots.” In the news headlines, when we read, “Talks with Naxals only if they abjure violence”, a statement by India’s Union Home Minister Chidambaram (newkerala.com, December 2, 2009), it sounds quite fair and impressive. And when we read the news report, “Maoists struck with impunity triggering landmines and indiscriminate firing in Jharkhand” (news.tolmol.com, April 24, 2009, Times of India), it makes the reader empathise with the government policy. What is common between the two headlines is the power embedded between the words to influence the reader and bring him round to the elite’s viewpoint and to create the desired impact. How the fairer sex gets marginalized through the expressions of language is the origin of the debate on sexism. The title ‘Mr.’ has nothing to do with a man’s marital status, whereas two distinct titles – Miss and Mrs. – were prescribed for women. The consequence is that a new title ‘Ms.’ has come into use, though it is limited to the formal language adopted by the print media. As the scope of language expands, more and more effort will go into the analysis of discourse. But all that analysis doesn’t prevent the capacity of language to define and further the power equations in the human community. All said and done, words can never be neutral. References John Fiske (1994) Media Matters: Everyday Culture and Political Change. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Nikita Doval (November 29, 2009 Issue of The Week) Malayaala Manorama Press, Kerala, India. Sue L. T. McGregor (2004) Critical Discourse Analysis – A Primer. http://www.kon.org/archives/forum/15-1/mcgregorcda.html Read More