The Continuum of Language and Power in Modern Society - Essay Example

THE CREATION OF SOCIAL IDENTITY The Creation of Social Identity: The Continuum of Language and Power in Modern Society THE CREATION OF SOCIAL IDENTITY 2 Abstract The normative effect of language within society describes a role in which social identity and acceptance is the product of demonstrable power. The pervasiveness of this power can be seen in the fact that language creates power that is wielded from the “top down,” from the highest levels of socio-political hierarchy to the individual, and from the socially enfranchised/accepted individual to other parts of society. As such, language and power are bound together in a mutually sustaining relationship that gives shape and meaning to society as a whole. Keywords: normative, language, power, socio-political, hierarchy THE CREATION OF SOCIAL IDENTITY 3 The Creation of Social Identity: The Continuum of Language and Power in Modern Society One of the most powerful, normative effects of language lies in its ability to determine and assign social “belonging.” As discussed in Blommaert, this is a largely ideological notion, one rooted in the perception that in order to belong to a nation, or ethnic group, one must be able to “speak” the language at a sufficiently proficient level (2009). The wielding of language as power operates on a “two-way” street. Language may be used to exercise power in a “top down” direction, meaning a government may use language to assert its legitimacy, even its moral authority, among a population just as an individual may use language to acquire personal power, negotiating avenues of opportunity within a society by exhibiting his or her mastery of circumstances. This means more than simply being able to communicate verbally; it is the extent to which an individual projects the overall image and power of a language through writing, use of vernacular and other, more subtle means. It is in this way that the continuum of power and language in society creates social identity. The concept of language as power can be boiled down to a very elemental level. Language is the “invention” whereby human beings exchange ideas, the medium in which concepts are created, and the forum in which societal persuasion and influence is translated into intent. The Roman politician and orator Cicero used language as a means of social performance to “patronize or pillory,” to “exclude or excuse” and, when necessary, to extol societal virtues when circumstance dictated that the language of another be undermined (Krostenko, 2001). His power lay in his ability to use language so effectively that he coerced others into believing that language itself conferred power, an important concept in ancient Rome: its greatest perceived power was that it could confer the condition of citizenship. Perception, even then, was THE CREATION OF SOCIAL IDENTITY 4 reality and so it remains today. To be a citizen, the individual not only needs to know and speak the language, one must embody the language, must exhibit outward signs of one’s fluency in order to “belong.” Language as an extension of the nation state is a bestower of identity, both national and personal. “The space in which languages are situated is invariably a national space, the space defined by states that have names and can be treated as fixed units of knowledge and information…It is also a unit of power, control and institutionalization… ” (Blommaert, 2009). In this context, identity may be seen as power, or as that which gives shape and form to power. In his article on the relationship between language and ideology, Professor Eric Johnson writes that language is a tool for manipulating society (2005). Johnson considers language as “something that has been produced in public spaces for the purpose of persuading or dissuading others” (2005). In its more overt (and aggressive) form, language is seen as “an object that is used to control and mold social relationships” (2005). Indeed, language may be seen as having created society so as to have an organized and purposeful environment in which to exercise power. Thus, while Johnson notes that language is an organ for leveraging power within a society, we may likewise regard language and power as mutual extensions of each other. If one considers the existence of human society in Darwinian, or Marxian, terms, a social organism is a space in which its components (or citizens) will through the exercise of power seek to further their own interests at the expense of others, whose ability to wield power is lesser. As such, language becomes modified, or adapted, so as to serve the struggle for, and attainment of, power. THE CREATION OF SOCIAL IDENTITY 5 One manifestation of this phenomenon is the use and power of metaphor in society. Lakoff and Turner’s study of “metaphor coherence” indicates that, within society, the process of argument is identified with war, as a conflict in which the stronger “combatant” will, presumably, emerge as having won something substantive (1989). This can only play out in a society where language has been modified so that the use of metaphor is ubiquitous – “It is accessible to everyone: as children, we automatically, as a matter of course, acquire a mastery of everday thought and language. And it is irreplaceable: metaphor allows us to understand ourselves and our world in ways that no other modes of thought can” (Lakoff and Turner, 1989). An example of how language modification serves the pursuit of power is the prevalence of metaphorical language in the mass media (which helps to explain its ubiquity). In one notable example, the media referred to language as a prison in an article on immigrant status in the United States. The article indicates that fluency in English is the “key to unlock the handcuffs of poverty,” a dialectical construct which posits that language, represented as knowledge, equals power (Johnson, 2005). The use of metaphor here indicates a struggle, a conflict of sorts in which there are easily definable winners and losers. This is reminiscent of the Blommaert article, in which to simply communicate in a language is insufficient; a demonstrable level of proficiency in which the individual can speak, read and write is needed in order to become identified with, and accepted by, a society or culture. In Blommaert, we find that because Joseph failed to speak enough Kinyarwanda, or failed to speak it proficiently, his answers under questioning were considered incorrect and, as such, he was not accepted as Rwandan (2009). “Even if part of the first interview was done in THE CREATION OF SOCIAL IDENTITY 6 Kinyarwanda and even if Joseph wrote some words down in Kinyarwanda, his level of proficiency was deemed to fall below the standards of normalcy in terms of national belonging” (Blommaert, 2009). In the absence of “normalcy” and “national belonging,” the offending individual is assigned the status of “otherness,” which we may equate with being bereft of power. This double standard, within which Joseph was determined to have known Runyankole well enough to be labeled a Ugandan (in other words, as an un-Rwandan and thereby lacking identity and power), served to disenfranchise Joseph as a Rwandan (2009). In defining Joseph as a Ugandan, the authorities used language to assign him a specific ethnic category. The fact that language can be readily adapted for this function speaks not only to its power as a mediator of social identity but as the primary definer of social characteristics. In this role, language serves to create the “boxes” in which society places individuals and determines whether individuals have power according to the parameters set down by society. “Race and ethnicity are not given by nature, but are complex social facts” (Ethnicity lecture, 2012). As such, we may see how language wields power over society and over the individuals who comprise the social order. Science tells us that race and ethnicity are not credible determinants when it comes to human potential and the capability of individuals to accomplish goals. However, language constructs the determinants themselves and gives them meaning. More importantly, language (and the manipulation of language) facilitates the process whereby ethnic identity is “enforced” through the vocabulary of social custom and mores. In this reality, we may see how Blum’s model of a single naming convention, or “system,” flows from the power of language to create a carefully arranged social reality. THE CREATION OF SOCIAL IDENTITY 7 “In a sense there is a single ‘system’ or universe that includes social and occupational titles, pronouns, introductions, status, nicknames, and multiple names” (Kinship and naming lecture, 2012). As Blum contends, rituals serve to validate this process, to put an official stamp on the label so that we may say, for example, that someone has become an American, or is now a member of the Catholic faith because ritual ordains that it is so (Ritual lecture, 2012). Language is the fluid instrument through which this is accomplished, without which it would have no meaning. It has been said that power is about relationships – if this is true, then one can readily accept Blum’s assertion that language (i.e. words) create relationships among the people who share the ideas and definitions that determine whether someone belongs to a given society. Ultimately, this is the essence of language’s power to create identity within society. Language pervades society with a power that flows from the source of societal authority down to individuals, and from individuals to the highest rungs of the socio-political hierarchy. The advent of technology, in the form of cell phones, the Internet and various personal data devices have facilitated the exercise of this power, which amounts to the manipulation of language in the form of messages (Rafael, 2003). The success with which the individual accomplishes goals or affects change in society through the manipulation of language is, in part, a measure of the validity of his or her identity in society. That validity receives its sanction from the continuum of power and language, which are bound together in a mutually sustaining relationship. THE CREATION OF SOCIAL IDENTITY 8 References Blommaert, J. (2009). “Language, Asylum, and the National Order.” Current Anthropology. 50(4), pp. 415-441. Johnson, E. (2005). “WAR in the Media: Metaphors, Ideology, and the Formation of Language Policy.” Bilingual Research Journal, 29(3), pp. 621-640. Krostenko, B.A. (2001). Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, p. 201. Lakoff, G. and Turner, M. (1989). “More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor.” Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Linguistic Anthropology (2012). Ethnicity Lecture, Week 8. Linguistic Anthropology (2012). Kinship and Naming Lecture, Week 6. Linguistic Anthropology (2012). Ritual Lecture, Week 4. Rafael, V.L. (2003). “The Cell Phone and the Crowd: Messianic Politics in the Contemporary Philippines.” Public Culture, 15(3), pp. 399-425. Read More