Proyectos de Fortalecimiento de capacidades del Observatorio Socio-Económico y

1. RH: Okay, good. Yeah. So all right, the next question is so what makes one standard and one not? Go ahead Sanida?

2. Sanida: I don’t think there should be like a proper way of - not so much proper way of talking but like if there’s like singling out the way people talk in different areas so there shouldn’t be um one set way of talking. Like there should be a way of conversating to certain people in certain places, but not to have like a proper language.

In this argument, Sanida was trying to tease out the difference between having a “proper

language” and language domination. She began with a cognitive statement that there should not be a proper language, but then qualified this by saying “not so much” a proper language, as if a proper language in and of itself is not oppressive. Her contention was with “singling out the way people talk in different areas.” The expression “singling out” implies that some people are targeted for the way that they talk and this act of “singling out” is hurtful. Sanida understood the link between language and power. She argued against “one set way of talking” which

contradicted her apology in the previous transcript. However, she also suggested that context matters, arguing that there should be a way to speak “to certain people in certain places.” This supports the continuity in her narrative about language appropriateness and context. In a later discussion, Sanida told me that she talks to everyone differently, which explained why she felt the need to apologize to me when she got “too slangy” in episode 17. Moreover, it suggests that

Sanida understood that language use is a matter of appropriateness rather than correctness (Delpit. 1988).

The two excerpts that follow come from the same episode on dialect. Our conversation turned to Barack Obama and his language choices.

Episode 18: (continued)

3. Sanida: I would feel kind of like ashamed if – he presented himself like that way. Not ashamed, but like that stereotypical way of how black people act

4. Aaliyah: yeah

5. Candice: You’d be embarrassed. You wouldn’t want him to be like -- 6. Sanida: Yeah, exactly, exactly, so I’m glad.

7. RH: Why?

8. Sanida: Because I could see why -- 9. Tamika: He’s like representing us 10. RH: Let Sanida finish her point.

11. Sanida: Like now I understand why you was asking that question because - - 12. Candice: Just answer the question.

13. Sanida: No, I’m trying to get to like - - because we’re talking about what’s proper and what’s not proper, but then again we’re going to be mad about how Barack Obama is talking and not like us, so that’s why I said that. Do you understand?

14. RH: I think so. 15. [Multiparty talk]

16. RH: I think what – are you saying that you would have been ashamed if he did not speak in that professional dialect?

17. Sanida: Yeah, but then we’re like going against it 18. Aaliyah: yeah

19. Sanida: like saying what’s wrong and what’s not.

Sanida’s affective statement in line 3 linked her personally to Obama. She deepened this connection in her use of “ashamed” as if he were a family member or an intimate friend. Tamika validated this personal connection by stating that Obama was representing “us.” This was personal to Sanida and Tamika as African Americans. It should be noted here that all of the other students who spoke in this excerpt are also African American.

Sanida hedged her argument and qualified what she meant by “that way... that stereotypical way of how black people act.” In lines 4 and 5, others joined in to construct a collaborative argument. However, the evidence indicates that in this learning context Sanida had the space to recognize the contradictions in the argument and in the Discourses that she took up. She said, “now I understand” in line 11 to show that she recognized the complexity and

conflicting messages around language and race that I hoped she would consider. In lines 13 and 17, she implied that we were all engaged in conflicting subjectivities. Her use of the pronoun “we” was inclusive of her classmates. When she said, “we’re like going against it,” she suggested that there was tension in the argument. She and others argued at once that one language should not be privileged over others, and then they privileged that very language by stating that they would be embarrassed if Obama did not use it.

Sanida’s Discourses on language and race were at once in alignment and in conflict with the larger social narratives. This was confusing and contradictory, so she struggled to build coherent reasoning. However, she was given the space in this academic setting to explore these ideas. Moreover, she owned her right to having that space. In line 12, Candice pushed her to

“just answer the question” and Sanida responded with “no” because she was trying to untangle her ideas on very complex and personal issues. This classroom was a productive learning space for her because it allowed her to do that.

In the excerpt below, I attempted to reiterate that while there are different ways of speaking, none are better or worse.

Episode 18: (continued)

20. RH: That’s good. I think especially if we’re talking about institutions, if you go to school and the way you speak is different from the way they speak in school then you can come to believe that maybe you’re not smart, when in fact, maybe you’re just speaking

differently. You’re speaking a different dialect. And again, one isn’t better than the other. They’re just different, right?

21. Sanida: Then why are we like taught to learn that white people’s language is higher and means more – and more professional other than it just being a different way of talking? 22. Aaliyah: Because like, look who writes the history books. Not black people. We were

like a big part of history. Like they’re the ones who teaches us everything and so it’s like they teach us from their point of view. We’re not really learning from other people’s point of view.

Sanida was challenging the Discourse of language that white people’s ways with words are “higher” and mean more. She questioned why “we” were taught to believe this. Aaliyah stepped in to help her make sense of this narrative, and suggested that it related to racism and oppression. Aaliyah enlisted a cultural model of institutionalized racism as played out in education and history books written “not by black people.” She used the pronouns “they” and “us” to separate herself and her classmates from white people who control the institution of education. I also

tried to distance myself from the larger white population by using the pronoun “they” in line 20. In this space, Sanida’s classmates helped her to construct her understanding of this social

narrative as Aaliyah posited that all of them have been misled by a biased and limiting education. In this last transcript, Sanida discussed her use of the word “nigger.” This discussion was an extension of a writing exercise in which students had to choose a derogatory word that

someone might call them and write about what they think it means, why it hurts, and whether or not they use it themselves.