Morgan (2001) puts a decoder ring in the hands of the reader in detailing how culture is hidden in plain sight and how one may approach each gesture, line of text, song lyric, clothing choice, etc., as an opportunity for anthropological analysis. It is in looking past the actions, products, and words themselves to the motivation which lies underneath. These motivations are at the heart of culture. But there are even further layers to be examined... the actions, products, and words which motivate the motivation of the individual who then performs a task, utters a reactionary statement, or purchases the Toms with the purple zebra print.
For example:
------------------------ surface ------------------------------
What is observed? --- Franklin stops mid stride to bend down and tie his shoelaces.
What motivates the observed phenomena? --- Franklin is wearing shoes with laces and one became untied.
What motivates...? --- Franklin does not want his laces to drag on the sidewalk as he just changed the laces to a sweet checkered pattern pair.
...? --- Other kids at school have similar laces and Franklin has a desire to fit-in with his peers
------------------------deeper----------------------------------
--- A recent marketing campaign for these shoes with interchangeable laces focused on boys between the ages of 12 and 16; this line of shoes under this campaign provided the mall where Franklin and his friends shop with the line of shoes.
--- Shopping at the mall is a common collective activity for Franklin and his friends.
--- Wearing certain items are symbols of status.
The questions one could ask regarding the motivation of any of the above steps in a thought process could go in thousands of different directions. Rather than asking why Franklin is wearing that particular pair of shoes, we might examine his upbringing in relation to tying shoes? Is there some sort of connection between socioeconomic status and whether or not a person decides to retie his shoes? Is there cultural relativity as to whether he starts with one bunny ear or two?
In class last week, when I related culture to water, you (Dr Lisya Seloni) asked me whether or not the water held the shape of its container even once removed. Thinking on this, and on this week's reading, I would say yes, but only to an extent. We are like ice cubes, forming since birth within a certain shapely confine: some round, some square, some heart or seahorse-shaped. Once we are removed from our specific local cultures, like the ice cube removed from the freezer tray, we melt over time. We may then re-form in a similar, but never quite the same shape, or we may take a new perspective-shape completely. However, we are still water and will always carry with us the minerals of our source (or in the case of my freezer here, little pieces of broccoli or spinach that we keep frozen for later use and which somehow always finds its way into the cubes).
Morgan (2001) discusses language as a means by which we make that which is hidden, explicit. We may choose to define ourselves through our choice in words. Likewise, the language-and-culture which encapsules us from birth forms our perspectives, relationships, self-definitions, communitites, etc. Language is power.
Whereas the author had the experience of being corrected from 'tu' to 'vous', I have experienced the opposite. I am a self-corrector and have become very aware of the social constructs around formal and informal language, especially in the presence of my future in-laws. While spending the summer with them, at the table over lunch, I accidentally 'tutoi'ed Thérèse, only to catch myself and switch to 'vous' a second later. She decided to address this inner battle I'd had with the remark that she likes the feeling of closeness that 'tu' provides and that I could feel free to use it. Normally, if someone my age were to say this to me, I would use 'tu' from then on. Being that this is someone of a different generation, and my future mother-in-law, it would be inappropriate for me to make the switch, and keeping with 'vous' honors her as the wonderful person who brought the love of my life into this world.
'Vous' is still problematic however. It can be used, in my mind, as a means of distancing oneself formally from another party out of either respect or distaste, or the opposite: a means of respecting someone you are very close to.
Morgan discusses using language to unificate and to separate. We choose words that others will understand so as to show our part in the whole that includes the listeners. We also choose words that demonstrate our differences from the larger culture surrounding us, or to reach out to other listeners who might engage more specifically with different terminology.
I find the idea that "language is the central means of learning culture in the language classroom" (Morgan, 38) is true, but realize that the extent to what is teachable simply through language is mountainous! Like the tip of the iceberg metaphor which Morgan utilizes, I believe that what is learned is only the tip. One must experience the people, products, practices, perspectives, and communities in order to begin to FEEL the cultures available through the language studied. One has to sit at the table with many generations, experience embarrassment and laugh at mistakes in word choice, and fall in love with the view from a café terrace, or really hate the amount of dog droppings on a particular sidewalk, in order to understand and absorb new cultural aspects.
No comments:
Post a Comment