I began my discussion on Positioning Theory on June 3 by mentioning the liberation of different facets of society. What does this liberation mean? What does it entail? How and why does it happen?
I am revisiting this matter because of the encouragement of a close friend. Perhaps a second reason for this revisitation is because of my morning musings watching Anderson Cooper deliver breaking news.
In his whole career, Mr. Cooper, bless his soul, has given the world ample coverage of international conflicts. In the past weeks, the focus has been on Syria and Turkey. Thankfully, CNN is not only interested in violent conflicts. This morning, the international community's attention was diverted to yet another social issue, that is, a controversial gay healing center and its subsequent closure. At a quick glance, these conflicts may be incomparable. However, upon closer scrutiny, one unifying link that one may find is not necessarily within the cause of the conflict, but from the result of these conflicts. Due to perceived oppression by those involved in these issues, there have been voicing out of opinions, to make certain groups of people be heard. This means of communicating, whether it be by disgruntled citizens or human rights groups, is the core of the postmodern era view of communication, in that there is a right for one to speak his or her mind. To many, this postmodern mode of communicating indicates a democratic philosophy, to others, this indicates a necessary means for a harmonious relationship.
To help us understand better, we can localize the definition of postmodern communication within the linguistic framework. We can narrow this further by looking at it from a sociolinguistic perspective, since both language and society are at stake. An example which provides a detailed elaboration of postmodern communication is Piller's (2002) ethnographic case studies of English-German spouses/partners. One finding from her study is the high value placed on communication between spouses or partners. Gone are the days when spouses or partners are automatically 'given' their domestic roles. Instead of assuming traditional roles of the conservative society, participants in Piller's (ibid.) study were found to have negotiated their familial roles with their fellow spouse or partner. To illustrate, instead of husbands taking up the long-held role as breadwinners, wives or female partners had equal chance to contribute financially as well.
From this study, postmodern communication can be seen as a catalyst in the disintegration of 'given' social roles. This process would not be carried out without the use of language. Hence, in a postmodern society, the power of communication, or language has been elevated. It is the use of language that the postmodern community believes would bring change, as is what is happening among the Syrians or Turkish protestors, or the human rights activists condemning the recently-closed gay healing center.
Hence, the liberation of society involves the possible reshaping of structure in a society. A new emerging form may not be permanent, though. For instance, if the voices of the Syrian or Turkish protestors are genuinely heard, and a reform ensues, they would probably cease their riots. In this turn of event, the protestors will lose their initial role as protestors and become supporters. The liberation of a society from a fixed or deterministic role then entails a plethora of possible assumable roles. People, or discourse participants, who strive to make their voices heard would have the opportunity to reshape or introduce possible social roles.
A third issue which I raised is why and how liberation happens. This issue needs to be approached by including language in the equation. We now know that language is a means for making a social role known. Why and how, then, does liberation through language happen. Scholars such as Fairclough, Blommaert, and van Dijk have written extensively on this. Though their emphases may differ, these scholars state a close-knit relationship between language and society. This relationship between language and society does not only revolve around the idea that language is a code used only to communicate, or to identify a certain type of community (e.g. Malay is spoken by Malaysians, thus Malay is an identity marker of a Malaysian.), but it is also a tool which mediates an ideology held by its speakers. An ideology, or simply put - a common belief or attitude, is carried through in language. This is observable in the field of linguistics itself, wherein it is insufficient to look at linguistic through an objective lens (e.g. grammar analysis, linguistic features devoid or isolated from its context of use). Instead, language occurrence needs to be analysed through pragmatics and semantics as well. This is because true understanding of 'language' only comes when it is considered in its structure and context.
So, why and how does this happen? Why does liberation happen in the postmodern society and how is language involved in this process? One reason which one could attribute to liberation in the postmodern society is globalization. One imprint of globalization on world societies is the blurring of boundaries, may it be physical boundaries or perceived boundaries. In other words, the whole concept of globalization is not just an economics one anymore. The blurring of boundaries have given rise to an awareness that reformation could happen. From this, emancipation from any perceived oppression is possible. This perspective is not novel and can be traced back to Paulo Freire, in the 1960s, who encouraged the use and learning of language to 'liberate' slum dwellers from their dire economic state.
I am revisiting this matter because of the encouragement of a close friend. Perhaps a second reason for this revisitation is because of my morning musings watching Anderson Cooper deliver breaking news.
In his whole career, Mr. Cooper, bless his soul, has given the world ample coverage of international conflicts. In the past weeks, the focus has been on Syria and Turkey. Thankfully, CNN is not only interested in violent conflicts. This morning, the international community's attention was diverted to yet another social issue, that is, a controversial gay healing center and its subsequent closure. At a quick glance, these conflicts may be incomparable. However, upon closer scrutiny, one unifying link that one may find is not necessarily within the cause of the conflict, but from the result of these conflicts. Due to perceived oppression by those involved in these issues, there have been voicing out of opinions, to make certain groups of people be heard. This means of communicating, whether it be by disgruntled citizens or human rights groups, is the core of the postmodern era view of communication, in that there is a right for one to speak his or her mind. To many, this postmodern mode of communicating indicates a democratic philosophy, to others, this indicates a necessary means for a harmonious relationship.
To help us understand better, we can localize the definition of postmodern communication within the linguistic framework. We can narrow this further by looking at it from a sociolinguistic perspective, since both language and society are at stake. An example which provides a detailed elaboration of postmodern communication is Piller's (2002) ethnographic case studies of English-German spouses/partners. One finding from her study is the high value placed on communication between spouses or partners. Gone are the days when spouses or partners are automatically 'given' their domestic roles. Instead of assuming traditional roles of the conservative society, participants in Piller's (ibid.) study were found to have negotiated their familial roles with their fellow spouse or partner. To illustrate, instead of husbands taking up the long-held role as breadwinners, wives or female partners had equal chance to contribute financially as well.
From this study, postmodern communication can be seen as a catalyst in the disintegration of 'given' social roles. This process would not be carried out without the use of language. Hence, in a postmodern society, the power of communication, or language has been elevated. It is the use of language that the postmodern community believes would bring change, as is what is happening among the Syrians or Turkish protestors, or the human rights activists condemning the recently-closed gay healing center.
Hence, the liberation of society involves the possible reshaping of structure in a society. A new emerging form may not be permanent, though. For instance, if the voices of the Syrian or Turkish protestors are genuinely heard, and a reform ensues, they would probably cease their riots. In this turn of event, the protestors will lose their initial role as protestors and become supporters. The liberation of a society from a fixed or deterministic role then entails a plethora of possible assumable roles. People, or discourse participants, who strive to make their voices heard would have the opportunity to reshape or introduce possible social roles.
A third issue which I raised is why and how liberation happens. This issue needs to be approached by including language in the equation. We now know that language is a means for making a social role known. Why and how, then, does liberation through language happen. Scholars such as Fairclough, Blommaert, and van Dijk have written extensively on this. Though their emphases may differ, these scholars state a close-knit relationship between language and society. This relationship between language and society does not only revolve around the idea that language is a code used only to communicate, or to identify a certain type of community (e.g. Malay is spoken by Malaysians, thus Malay is an identity marker of a Malaysian.), but it is also a tool which mediates an ideology held by its speakers. An ideology, or simply put - a common belief or attitude, is carried through in language. This is observable in the field of linguistics itself, wherein it is insufficient to look at linguistic through an objective lens (e.g. grammar analysis, linguistic features devoid or isolated from its context of use). Instead, language occurrence needs to be analysed through pragmatics and semantics as well. This is because true understanding of 'language' only comes when it is considered in its structure and context.
So, why and how does this happen? Why does liberation happen in the postmodern society and how is language involved in this process? One reason which one could attribute to liberation in the postmodern society is globalization. One imprint of globalization on world societies is the blurring of boundaries, may it be physical boundaries or perceived boundaries. In other words, the whole concept of globalization is not just an economics one anymore. The blurring of boundaries have given rise to an awareness that reformation could happen. From this, emancipation from any perceived oppression is possible. This perspective is not novel and can be traced back to Paulo Freire, in the 1960s, who encouraged the use and learning of language to 'liberate' slum dwellers from their dire economic state.
Comments