Bourdieu’s Account of Language and Power
Bourdieu does not agree with the founding fathers of linguistics – Ferdinand Saussure and Naom Chomsky. In his 1991 book entitled Language and Symbolic Power, Bourdieu attacked Saussure’s concept and stated that “as soon as one treats language as an autonomous object, accepting the radical separation which Saussure made between internal and external linguistics, between the science of language and the science of the social uses of language, one is condemned to looking within words, for the power of words, that is, looking for it where it cannot be found (Bourdieu, 1991, p. 107 cited in Grenfell, 1998, p. 73). For Bourdieu, words are never just words, language is never just a vehicle to express ideas. Rather it comes as the product and process of social activity which is differentiating and differentiated; and thus, differentially valued within fields of social activity. Language is value-laden and culturally expressive according to standards of legitimacy and opposition to them (Grenfell, 1998).
Bourdieu (1977) argues that language should be examined in terms of the relationship from which it is generated. Bourdieu (1991) is his book, Language and Symbolic Power, described symbolic power as a power of consuming the given through utterances, of making people see and believe, of confirming or transforming the vision of the world and thereby, action on the world and thus the world itself. Bourdieu (1991) also showed the innumerable and subtle strategies by which language can be used as an instrument of communication as well as control, coercion as well as constraint, ad condescension as well as contempt (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Bourdieu (1991) attempts to reconnect the Marxist and structuralist lines by renouncing he structuralist dismissal of the human subject. According to Bourdieu, every area of human activity is a socially charged field. Players in every human activity are called by Bourdieu as “habitus”, a location within a system, inhabited by an active human subject who is defined by the system but, crucially, not merely its passive object, but engaging in exchanges of symbolic power (Davies & Elder, 2005). For Bourdieu, all speech acts are the outcome of two ‘causal series’. First, there is the habitus, the ‘linguistic habitus’ which encompasses the cultural propensity to say particular things, a specific linguistic competence (the capacity to ‘speak properly’) and the social capacity to use that competence appropriately. Second, there is the ‘linguistic market’, which takes the form of sanctions and censorships, and which defines what cannot be said as much as what can. Bourdieu is thus concerned with linguistic practices from the point of view of their production and their reception: the speech act is not to be reduced to ‘mere execution’ (Jenkins, 1992).
Language according to Bourdieu arises out of interactions with language and between people, which are constructing and constructed according to intent, the limits of context, and degrees of share meaning. The market analogy in “Linguistic Market” is used to refer to the ways linguistic products have value in a particular field the way market products have value. Linguistic value is set by relations between different aspects of words and meanings and those of the established legitimate linguistic norm. This ‘norm’ is defined as the most prestigious language, possessing greatest linguistic capital, or the dominating style of language of those who speak from authority. It follows that a field will have its own linguistic norm to which everything defines and differentiates itself. Forms which are deviant in terms of one field can, of course, be the ‘norm’ in another field. It is in this sense, that the language of a field can then be understood as a ‘linguistic market’, as valuing is relative and ‘open’ to renegotiation. Much of Bourdieu’s discussion follows on the basis of this understanding. Language for Bourdieu cuts across and partially integrates these approaches. It is ‘constructivist’ in an almost Vygotskyan way; but also ‘structural’ in that it rests on the belief that generating structures, and the principles on which they are based, are identifiable. Language for Bourdieu is essentially representative of social structural differentiation. It always relates to something. The relation is characterized by meanings that are valued according to differential values—the sense of words. Language, for Bourdieu, is primordial. He is mindful of the way in which social reality is constructed in and through language. He has noted, as have Austin and Searle, the illocutionary force of language; the way it seemingly can cause effects over and above the basic words ‘in themselves’. The way ships are named is a good example of this, or the knighting of someone by the Queen. Both of these are acts of ‘magic’, where power is conferred on someone by the group to act in their name in allotting social prestige and status to others, places or objects (Grenfell. 1998).
In order to expand the field of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), theorists such as Fairclough (1995), incorporated the critical concepts from the works of Michael Foucault, Antonio Gramsci, Mikhail Bakhtin, Roland Bathes and Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu’s concept of language and power is used in assuming the discourses generates “symbolic power”. Fairclough’s (1989) CDA marries critical linguistics with the perspectives of Foucault and Bourdieu, and sees itself as capturing the dynamic nature of both power relations and text production by uncovering the hegemonic structures within texts. CDA is both a theory and a method. Researchers who are interested in the relationship between language and society use CDA to help them describe, interpret, and explain such relationships. CDA is different from other discourse analysis methods because it includes not only a description and interpretation of discourse in context, but also offers an explanation of why and how discourses work. The term critical in CDA is often associated with studying power relations. Critical research and theory is a rejection of naturalism, rationality, neutrality and individualism. Critical research rejects the overdeterministic view of social theory espoused by Marxists and instead argues for a dialectic between individual agency and structural determinism. As with all research, the intentions of critical discourse analysts are not neutral. Another interpretation of the “critical” in CDA is an attempt to describe, interpret, and explain the relationship between the form and function of language. The form of language, as expanded on in a later section, consists of grammar, morphology, semantics, syntax, and pragmatics. The function of language includes how people use language in different situations to achieve an outcome. Critical discourse analysts believe there is a relationship between the form and function of language. Further, they start with the assumption that certain networks of form–function relationships are valued in society more than others (Rogers, 2003).
According to Fairclough (2005) CDA is based upon the assumption that language is an irreducible part of social life, dialectically interconnected with other elements of social life, so that social analysis and research always has to take account of language. Fairclough's (1995) basic argument is this: The goal of critical discourse analysis is to denaturalize ideologies that have become naturalized. Ideologies, he explains, are particular representations of some aspect of the world (which could be alternatively represented) that can be associated with some particular “social base.” Such ideologies have become naturalized, “dissociated… from the particular social base” (Pennycook, 2001). Fairclough (1992) discusses discourse as a mode of political and ideological practice. According to him, Discourse as a political practice establishes, sustains and changes power relations, and the collective entities (classes, blocs, communities, groups) between which power relations obtain. Discourse as an ideological practice constitutes, naturalizes, sustains and changes significations of the world from diverse positions in power relations. In a series of books and articles, Fairclough has developed and enlarged this view of CDA. Probably the best known element of his work is the development of what he calls his “three-dimensional” model of CDA (1995, p. 98), incorporating on one level the analytical procedures of description, interpretation, and explanation and on another level the different levels of text, text production and reception, and the larger sociopolitical context.
Fairclough’s CDA is based on the following assumptions:
1. Discourse is both a specific form of language use and a specific form of social interaction – discourse as language use primarily refers to spoken and written language use, but also includes other semiotic modalities such as non-verbal communication. Defining discourse as both a specific form of language use and a specific form of social interaction shifts the focus from language or language use per se to various contexts and implies a dialectical relationship between a particular discursive event and the situation, institution and social structure which frame it (Diriker, 2004).
2. Discourse is socially constitutive and socially conditioned – discourse is never an abstract or objective way of using language. All discourses are intimately intertwined with the way societies are organized and run. There are always a dialectical relationship between discourses and social practices and structures. Discourses are simultaneously constitutive of social identities, social relations and system of knowledge and belief (Diriker, 2004).
3. Discourse is ideological – discourse and ideology are very much intertwined. Fairclough (1995) argues that ideology and hegemony are discursive in nature (Diriker, 2004).
4. Discourse generates symbolic power – discourses are never produced in a vacuum. Since they are always imbricate in social relations, discourses may be formulated to serve the interests of their producers. According to Bourdieu (1992), in addition to the classical idea of economic capital, there are other forms of capital such as cultural capital and symbolic capital. While cultural capital pertains to knowledge, skills and other cultural acquisitions, symbolic capital refers to the accumulated prestige or honor of persons, groups, institutions, etc. It is precisely in the constitution and enhancement of the latter where discourse plays a fundamental role, especially because in the filed there is always room for one from of capital to be converted into another (Diriker, 2004).
References
Bourdieu, P 1977, ‘The economics of linguistic exchanges’, Social Science Information, pp.645-668.
Bourdieu, P 1991, Language and symbolic power, Polity Press, Oxford.
Davies, A & Elder, C 2005, The handbook of applied linguistics, Wiley-Blackwell.
Diriker, E 2004, ‘De-/re-contextualizing conference interpreting: interpreters in the ivory tower?’, Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fairclough, N 1992, Discourse and social change, Polity, Oxford, UK.
Fairclough, N 1993, ‘Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse’, Discourse and Society, 4, 133–168.
Fairclough, N 1995, Critical discourse analysis, Longman, London.
Fairclough, N 2003, Analyzing discourse: textual analysis for social research, Routledge, New York.
Greenfell, MDJ 1998, Bourdieu and education: acts of practical theory, Falmer Press, London.
Jenkins, R 1992, Pierre Bourdieu, Routledge, New York.
Kumaravadivelu, B 2006, Understanding language teaching: from method to post-method, Routledge, New York.
Pennycook, A 2001, Critical applied linguistics: a critical introduction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah NJ.
Rogers, R 2003, An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment