Programa 1: Destino Huila: ordenado y sostenible para el turismo

We also need to consider the discursive function of „yappari‟, i.e., what the

speaker is „doing‟ by using „yappari‟ to assert that a claim or result is expected and thus

„commonsense‟. This can be tied to the notion of speaker accountability (see section 3.2). Speakers arguably draw on yappari to position claims as „commonsense‟ thereby

reducing their own „accountability‟ by shifting responsibility to society (Sasamoto,

2006). To illustrate with a simple example, “Yappari nihon no biru ha oishii desu ne”

(As expected, Japanese beer is good) (Makino & Tsutsui, 2002, p. 539). This type of

praise for Japanese products is common in Japan where people often assert the

superiority of Japanese items and uniqueness of Japanese culture (Sugimoto, 2003).

Prefacing the claim about Japanese beer with yappari is one way to position this claim

not as the speaker‟s opinion, but as „commonsense‟ shared by members of Japanese

society. Consequently, yappari allows speakers to avoid the charge of having a stake or

interest in their claims (see section 3.2.3) and effectively corroborates them. For

195

during the first three years of a baby‟s life with yappari, thus framing women‟s maternal

role as „commonsense‟ and not simply her individual or potentially biased claim (see

section 6.2.1). Yappari allowed her to position women who are fulltime homemakers as

adhering to social norms, while working women as „outliers‟.Her potential stake in the

claim that women are „natural‟ caregivers was reduced because yappari framed this

information as „commonsense‟ and not simply representative of her personal opinion.

The issue of whose „commonsense‟ yappari refers to requires further

discussion. As discussed, interpretative repertoires are common ways of talking about

certain topics or events which are available to members of a given society (see section

3.4.1). I also suggested that repertoires are not neutral but infused with a culture‟s lived

ideologies (see section 3.4.2). I propose that when speakers use yappari to frame

information as commonsense, they are drawing on and assuming subject positions in

relation to interpretative repertoires. For example, one of my participants claimed,

„yappari children are best raised by their mothers‟ hands‟. In this example (see Chapter 6; Extract 2), Mayumi can be seen as drawing on a „Women as natural caregivers‟

repertoire (see section 6.2.1) and positioning women in a domestic role. „Women as

natural caregivers‟ is not a neutral representation of women, but positions them as

196

repertoire, then, is that since women give birth to children they also possess a natural

predisposition to care for them. Similarly, a „Women as eventually domestic‟ repertoire

(see section 6.2.2) presumably positions women in a domestic role because of the

association between femininity and the domestic sphere. The „commonsense‟ espoused

by these repertoires illustrates how social significance can be constructed from

biological differences between men and women and in the process position women in a

subordinate role. If these repertoires are accepted by individuals as „natural‟ or

„commonsense‟, which the use of yappari would indicate, then they can contribute to the maintenance of a patriarchal gender order whereby men normatively maintain

economic and social power over women.

Fairclough (1989) discusses the process of „naturalization‟ as entailing certain

discourses achieving the status of „commonsense‟. Similarly, specific interpretative

repertoires, infused with lived ideologies, can gain dominant or „hegemonic‟ status;

however, through the process of naturalization they lose their ideological character and

become accepted as „cultural truths‟. For example, the long-standing influence of

„compulsory heterosexuality‟ (Rich, 1980) is so ingrained in many societies that married women (or men) are rarely asked „how did you end up married?‟ (Reynolds & Wetherell,

197

(see sections 6.2.1-6.2.2) may be accepted as value-free, „commonsense‟; however, they

are infused with an „invisible‟ ideology which constructs women‟s roles and ultimately

femininity as involving „other-centeredness‟ (Lazar, 2000; see section 1.3), i.e.

foregrounding the needs of other family members.

According to Fairclough (1989), one way that „naturalization‟ occurs is through

individuals‟ explanations which „rationalize‟ certain phenomena. As individuals

construct accounts, they „naturalize‟ certain phenomena, e.g. heterosexuality, which, in the process, loses its ideological underpinnings and becomes sanctioned as

commonsense. Therefore, a question about marital status may be deemed „normative‟

within many communities of practice (see section 2.1.2); however, it rests on the

„heteronormative‟ assumption of „compulsory heterosexuality‟. It could be argued, then, that individuals‟ accounts are a fruitful „epistemological sites‟ (Sunderland, 2004) to

investigate the process of „naturalization‟ and construction of „commonsense‟. In my

data, some speakers seemed to draw on „Women as natural caregivers‟ and „Women as

eventually domestic‟ repertoires (see chapter 6) as they constructed accounts which

rationalized a conventional division of domestic labor, apparently accepting the

„commonsense‟ constructed by these repertoires. Other participants, by contrast, assumed more resistant subject positions and thus challenged the „commonsense‟

198

embedded in these repertoires.

Yappari is thus, I argue, a discursive device which constructs a claim as

„commonsense‟, and the „commonsense‟ to which yappari refers is that of different interpretative repertoires. I suggest that when participants utilize yappari to make a

claim, they are drawing on and assuming subject positions in relation to particular

interpretative repertoires. By allowing participants to construct claims as

„commonsense‟, yappari thus reduces participants‟ own accountability by attributing it to „society‟. Since the claim has the „authority‟ of „commonsense‟ it is rhetorically

stronger. Participants‟ taking up subject positions in relation to interpretative repertoires

contributes to the „naturalization‟ of the „commonsense‟ articulated by these repertoires.

5.5 Conclusion

In this chapter I discussed the discursive analytic devices of reported speech,

membership categories, and yappari. I selected these discursive devices because they

frequently surfaced in participants‟ discourse and suggested that participants were

drawing on and assuming subject positions in relation to certain interpretative

repertoires (discussed in chapters 6, 7, 8). In the analytical chapters 6-8 I demonstrate

how participants use reported speech, MCDs, and yappari to draw on and assume

199

hegemonic or pariah femininity subjectivities.

In Chapter 6 I focus on the discursive construction of hegemonic femininity.