The concepts of authoring oneself or Holoquist’s notion of “dialogism” based on Bakhtin’s work are relevant for our discussions of identity. Essentially, Holland et al. set out the parameters of authoring oneself based on his or her context (thus using the language in all its avenues of the culture and historical situatedness, or heteroglossia) in dialogue, whether as an inner voice (influenced by external voices and vocabulary) or a spoken dialogue. Consequently, identity is always developing, based on these dialogic relationships. Ahearn takes the issue of language further by illustrating how language affects agency (agency defined as “the socioculturally mediated capacity to act” p. 130), even looking at the grammar constructions of expressing self as the primary agent acting upon something/one else in different languages.
Holland et al. take great efforts to compare and contrast Vygotsky’s and Bakhtin’s ideas. One avenue I found interesting was the elucidation of Vygotsky’s “pull yourself up by your bootstrap through language” as criticized for lacking in addressing the power and privilege often embedded in language. Ahearn also addressed a similar concept with “symbolic violence” as coined by Bourdieu while connecting it to Bakhtin’s idea that there are “no neutral words” (p. 111). I like the quote from Bakhtin used by Ahearn (and possibly in the Holland et al. text) that uses the imagery of “taste” to illustrate how words are always nuanced with flavor or association beyond a sterile meaning.
In thinking of the self authoring the world based on what is already in existence reminds me a little of the old question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Is a person’s identity completely bound to the language and social setting where one finds oneself? De Certeau’s explanation of “la perruque” begs the question of how much self-authoring can one do under the constraints of those in power of language, economics, and society? And as Ahearn questioned, “how [can] social reproduction become[s] social transformation” (p. 131)?
1 comment:
I also really liked the whole discussion behind the "taste" of words. I had a discussion with my husband about how words have changed. What inspired it was when I had to explain to my children that the Valentine card that said they were "groovy" (60's slang) meant that they were "cool" (89's slang that my children use). The whole discussion about "pulling up by the language bootstraps" makes me think about My Fair Lady and the fact that it is not just the words we say and how we pronounce them, but there is an expected behavior (or shall we say framework) to go with the associated class of language.
Post a Comment