In
James Tollefson’s article entitled “Critical Theory in Language Policy”(2006) ,
the role of critical applied linguistics was emphasized in building the tenets
of Critical Language Policy (CLP) . Tollefson discussed three assumptions from
critical theory which are widely accepted in CLP. I find these three
assumptions striking because their relevance extends to my teaching and my
future research endeavors.
A.
Structural Categories are explanatory factors.
Structural categories such as class,
race, and gender are explanatory factors in all social life (Tollefson, 2006). This
is the notion that language behavior and performance of an individual is a
product of his/her social interactions which are influenced by his/her race,
gender, and class. Therefore, to investigate and analyze a language policy is to
look at its intentions and consequences for individuals and their class, race,
and gender. To illustrate, the ‘English-only policy” in a public school
classroom may have serious consequences for a poor female student in a patriarchal
nationalist society since her social life (1) does not expose her to enough linguistic
input due to poverty, (2) constrains her social interaction in English and in
her mother tongue as a female, and (3) tells her that English is an affront to
nationalism and identity.
This reminds me of the complexity of language
policy making in the classroom since a language policy does not only affect the
language behavior of my students but also their whole social being in some way
or another.
B.
The need for ethical and political considerations in research
“[A] critical examination of
epistemology and research methodology is inseparable from ethical standards and
political commitments to social justice (Tollefson, 2006, 44)”. Research has ethical
and political dimensions; it is not just a pure academic and scientific endeavor.
This requires the researcher to constantly examine himself in relation to his research
participants (oftentimes the Others), in relation to the phenomenon/subject
matter he is investigating, and in relation to the discourse communities he is
dealing with.
Personally as an aspiring researcher,
I am reminded of the great responsibility that a researcher has in society. I
need to be conscious of the way I conduct my research to make sure that the
voice of "the Others" and of the people affected by my research is well represented.
I should always bear in mind that research findings, including research on
language policies, do not just stay at the theses/dissertation section of the
libraries or the pages of the academic journals; they are consumed by
institutions in society in the form of policies which may build or destroy
lives.
C.
Key Ideas from Critical Theory
Important constructs inform CLP such
as power, struggle, colonization, hegemony and ideology, and resistance. I find
these concepts valuable in research because they provide frameworks with which
to view individuals, groups, and institutions and better understand power
relations in society.
It is also interesting to find out
that these constructs are operating even inside the classroom. All classroom
practices and policies are political. They are based on certain ideologies and
hegemonic ideas which are imposed by powerful institutions and individuals. For
example, Auerbach argues that monolingual English-only instruction serves the
economic and political interests of the dominant groups in the US and is
hurting the interest of the adult ESL students with limited L1 and schooling
backgrounds (as cited in Pennycook, 1994). Perhaps this is what critical
scholars maintain that the classroom is never innocent and is a cultural site
where contrasting ideologies compete and hegemonies are entrenched (Canagarajah,
1999; Pennycook, 1994).
References
Canagarajah,
A. Suresh. (1999). Resisting Linguistic
Imperialism in English Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pennycook,
Alastair (1999). The Cultural Politics of
English as an International Language. London:
Longman.
Tollefson, J.W. (2006). Critical
theory in language policy. In An introduction to
language policy: theory
and method (pp.
42 – 59). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei have to admit that among the entries, this is the first one that struck me. Specifically the one raised in point B where there is a need to position ourselves to a more non-neutral stance in our research on language policies since we are constantly placed at the receiving end of these l. I am reminded of two important things that have influenced my own research.
ReplyDeleteCanagarajah's work documented in resisting linguistic imperialism in ELT is a watershed reading for everyone embracing a critical stance in research in our field as it successfully problematizes dominant beliefs in our profession by relating it to his own local Sri Lankan context. In his writings, i saw the same tensions experienced in my own classrooms. I guess in relation to this, his work compels us to have that sense of intense engagement with issues surrounding language policies.
This leads to my second point, which is related to my own experience in embracing a critical stance on things. I am sure that as researchers excited in unraveling blindspots in policies, we will feel frustrated that some may even brand us as "rebellious". I guess aside from supposed "intellectual" enlightenment, there is corresponding "pain" one feels in trying to "resist" (in Canagarajah's terms) these forms of oppression. But it is refreshing to know at least we look for transformative ways in slowly challenging forces that have disenfranchised teachers and students for so long.
Thank you, Sir Potch Valdez for taking the time to read and comment. Indeed, Canagarajah was the starting point for me to see the "social justice" side of ELT (kaya love ko siya!). I am also inspired to know that there are Filipino teachers like you who look for ways to resist forms of oppression in Philippine ELT.
DeleteCOngrats on your new publication! =)
Honey, this is a wonderful reflection. You have highlighted the points from Tollefson that are meaningful to you (and you have chosen some really powerful ones) and you tell us how you are thinking about these points - as a teacher, researcher, student, etc.
ReplyDeleteI would be really interested to hear more details - about what you currently do - as a teacher, a researcher, as a student, as someone who uses language in his every day life. What is your classroom or your school like? What "language policy making" is at work there? In what ways do you see your classroom (since that seems to be the site that is the focus of your reflection) as a "cultural site where contrasting ideologies compete . . ." ? How do you see this in action, in your own classroom?