Greetings. I’m new to this particular substack and definitely a novice in this area of study. But this particular conversation takes me back to the days (early1980’s) when I was studying for a masters degree at a Quaker based school of higher learning. We dove into the question of Ebonics, having one of its prime theorists present to us, and it also puts me in mind of the man who wrote pedagogy of the oppressed, Paulo Freire.
I’m wondering how you would position concepts like these two that I’ve mentioned into your particular discussion of Bourdieu.
Your reference to 1980s Ebonics debates and Paulo Freire highlights tensions in understanding linguistic oppression and resistance that both complement and challenge Bourdieu's framework.The Ebonics controversy points to both the strengths and limitations of Bourdieu's approach. Linguistic research by scholars like Geneva Smitherman and William Labov showed that African American Vernacular English represents a systematic, rule-governed variety rather than deficient Standard English (Smitherman, 1977; Labov, 1972). This challenges educational practices that Bourdieu would recognise as symbolic violence.
However, the Oakland School Board's 1996 recognition of Ebonics represented conscious political resistance rather than unconscious acceptance of linguistic subordination. This suggests that dominated groups possess greater awareness of linguistic oppression than Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence acknowledges. Yet the rather intense controversy surrounding Ebonics recognition confirms Bourdieu's analysis of how linguistic markets operate to maintain dominant group advantages.
Freire's work offers a more optimistic framework than Bourdieu's deterministic model. His concept of critical consciousness suggests that oppressed groups can develop awareness of their linguistic situation and actively challenge dominant ideologies (Freire, 1970). Freire's pedagogical approach valorises students' home language varieties as knowledge sources rather than learning obstacles.
This contrasts sharply with Bourdieu's emphasis on unconscious reproduction. However, Freire's framework arguably underestimates the structural constraints that Bourdieu highlights. Critical consciousness alone cannot transform linguistic markets or eliminate the material advantages that standard language competence provides.
These frameworks reveal the key tension points between structural reproduction (Bourdieu), conscious liberation (Freire), and empirical linguistic equality alongside persistent social marginalisation (Ebonics scholarship). Contemporary approaches like culturally sustaining pedagogy attempt to synthesise these insights whilst acknowledging that progressive pedagogical approaches still operate within Bourdieusian linguistic markets (Paris, 2012).
Your historical perspective is a good reminder that these theoretical debates emerge from real struggles over linguistic recognition. The persistence of these issues suggests that neither structural analysis nor critical pedagogy alone provides sufficient tools for achieving linguistic equality.
Many thanks for reading and engaging with my article. I really appreciate that.
Interesting again as I do recall that part of that classroom conversation addressing the idea that Ebonics does exhibit critical “language use “ differences. Particularly the use of the verb to BE. ( i know I’m not using the correct linguistic terms here but I’m thinking you’ll get what I’m referring to). Specifically, that Ebonics speakers use that verb in a variety of ways which are fundamental to the use of that verb in African languages and cultures.
OK so please keep in mind that I’m recalling discussions that took place about 50 Years ago for me. 😜
Boy, thank you so much for taking the time to reply. The analysis in your response is really helpful to me. And I’m glad that I wasn’t totally off the mark when I referenced those two phenomenon, Ebonics and Friere. I now recall at that time when I was working on that masters degree and listening to these discussions, particularly about Ebonics, that African-American students were telling us white folk that African-Americans, who spoke standard English, as well as Ebonics were in fact… Bilingual.
- Bilingualism typically refers to fluency in two distinct languages (e.g. English and Spanish), often with separate grammatical systems and lexicons.
- African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and Standard American English (SAE) re varieties of the same language: English. They share a core lexicon and many grammatical features, though AAVE has its own systematic phonology, syntax, and pragmatics.
- Calling AAVE speakers “bilingual” can unintentionally reinforce the idea that AAVE is somehow “not English,” which linguists have worked hard to debunk. AAVE is a rule-governed, expressive dialect with deep historical roots and cultural significance.
I think a better be *code-switching* (alternating between dialects depending on context). It could also be *diglossia* (functional separation of dialects by social context). This would be an extended version of diglossia. (if you are interested in diglossia go to https://irl.umsl.edu/oer/16/)
I heavy linguist jargon (why make things simple when you can make them more complicated!!!), I would speak of "bidialectalism with code-switching competence"
With thanks for this article because it suggests where one might look for answers to questions about racially charged language that have concerned this correspondent.
Van Dijk's contribution ought to be common sense; we don't live in that world. Many philosophers roughly agree on that part, but it must be reiterated periodically.
Bourdieu is one of my favs, this is such a great piece! I have a Bourdieu x Foucault piece in the pipeline
Many thanks for the comment. I really appreciate.
See my piece about Foucault https://open.substack.com/pub/linguistically/p/foucault-discourse-power-and-knowledge?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=4mukj5
Amazing! Thank you
Greetings. I’m new to this particular substack and definitely a novice in this area of study. But this particular conversation takes me back to the days (early1980’s) when I was studying for a masters degree at a Quaker based school of higher learning. We dove into the question of Ebonics, having one of its prime theorists present to us, and it also puts me in mind of the man who wrote pedagogy of the oppressed, Paulo Freire.
I’m wondering how you would position concepts like these two that I’ve mentioned into your particular discussion of Bourdieu.
Your reference to 1980s Ebonics debates and Paulo Freire highlights tensions in understanding linguistic oppression and resistance that both complement and challenge Bourdieu's framework.The Ebonics controversy points to both the strengths and limitations of Bourdieu's approach. Linguistic research by scholars like Geneva Smitherman and William Labov showed that African American Vernacular English represents a systematic, rule-governed variety rather than deficient Standard English (Smitherman, 1977; Labov, 1972). This challenges educational practices that Bourdieu would recognise as symbolic violence.
However, the Oakland School Board's 1996 recognition of Ebonics represented conscious political resistance rather than unconscious acceptance of linguistic subordination. This suggests that dominated groups possess greater awareness of linguistic oppression than Bourdieu's concept of symbolic violence acknowledges. Yet the rather intense controversy surrounding Ebonics recognition confirms Bourdieu's analysis of how linguistic markets operate to maintain dominant group advantages.
Freire's work offers a more optimistic framework than Bourdieu's deterministic model. His concept of critical consciousness suggests that oppressed groups can develop awareness of their linguistic situation and actively challenge dominant ideologies (Freire, 1970). Freire's pedagogical approach valorises students' home language varieties as knowledge sources rather than learning obstacles.
This contrasts sharply with Bourdieu's emphasis on unconscious reproduction. However, Freire's framework arguably underestimates the structural constraints that Bourdieu highlights. Critical consciousness alone cannot transform linguistic markets or eliminate the material advantages that standard language competence provides.
These frameworks reveal the key tension points between structural reproduction (Bourdieu), conscious liberation (Freire), and empirical linguistic equality alongside persistent social marginalisation (Ebonics scholarship). Contemporary approaches like culturally sustaining pedagogy attempt to synthesise these insights whilst acknowledging that progressive pedagogical approaches still operate within Bourdieusian linguistic markets (Paris, 2012).
Your historical perspective is a good reminder that these theoretical debates emerge from real struggles over linguistic recognition. The persistence of these issues suggests that neither structural analysis nor critical pedagogy alone provides sufficient tools for achieving linguistic equality.
Many thanks for reading and engaging with my article. I really appreciate that.
Happened to stumble on this today. Perhaps you are shady aware.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/03/27/assembling-the-oxford-dictionary-of-african-american-english
Not “shady” but “already”
Thanks, I was not aware..Will do some more digging.
What you previously mentioned about the use of "be" is called the habitual be . See https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/fundamentals-of-the-grammar-of-standard-english/habitual-be
Interesting again as I do recall that part of that classroom conversation addressing the idea that Ebonics does exhibit critical “language use “ differences. Particularly the use of the verb to BE. ( i know I’m not using the correct linguistic terms here but I’m thinking you’ll get what I’m referring to). Specifically, that Ebonics speakers use that verb in a variety of ways which are fundamental to the use of that verb in African languages and cultures.
OK so please keep in mind that I’m recalling discussions that took place about 50 Years ago for me. 😜
Boy, thank you so much for taking the time to reply. The analysis in your response is really helpful to me. And I’m glad that I wasn’t totally off the mark when I referenced those two phenomenon, Ebonics and Friere. I now recall at that time when I was working on that masters degree and listening to these discussions, particularly about Ebonics, that African-American students were telling us white folk that African-Americans, who spoke standard English, as well as Ebonics were in fact… Bilingual.
Hi, glad my reply helped.
I have to argue with the word "bilingual".
- Bilingualism typically refers to fluency in two distinct languages (e.g. English and Spanish), often with separate grammatical systems and lexicons.
- African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and Standard American English (SAE) re varieties of the same language: English. They share a core lexicon and many grammatical features, though AAVE has its own systematic phonology, syntax, and pragmatics.
- Calling AAVE speakers “bilingual” can unintentionally reinforce the idea that AAVE is somehow “not English,” which linguists have worked hard to debunk. AAVE is a rule-governed, expressive dialect with deep historical roots and cultural significance.
I think a better be *code-switching* (alternating between dialects depending on context). It could also be *diglossia* (functional separation of dialects by social context). This would be an extended version of diglossia. (if you are interested in diglossia go to https://irl.umsl.edu/oer/16/)
I heavy linguist jargon (why make things simple when you can make them more complicated!!!), I would speak of "bidialectalism with code-switching competence"
With thanks for this article because it suggests where one might look for answers to questions about racially charged language that have concerned this correspondent.
Van Dijk's contribution ought to be common sense; we don't live in that world. Many philosophers roughly agree on that part, but it must be reiterated periodically.