Blog Post #2: Culture + Language + Self-Identity = ?

This week, Aneta Pavlenko’s article, “‘The Making of an American’: Negotiation of the Identities at the Turn of the Twentieth Century” outlines the differences between American immigrant narratives during the Great Migration (1880-1924) and current times. Pavlenko examines sociohistoric circumstances that affect these narratives and draws connections among identity, assimilation, Americanization, and English as a cultural carrier.

As I read this article, I was struck by the power of language to define and “otherize” speakers of different languages, as well as influence them. Language, a powerful cultural carrier, shaped the personal and national identities of immigrants. In the case of American English, English transformed from a language of national unity used to help immigrants assimilate to American life to a language that now entails that new English speakers in the U.S. must lose significant parts of their identities associated with their native languages and cultures. In other words, English in contemporary America implies that the idea of monolingualism is part of America’s national identity. This article reminded me of my grandmother, who was a first-generation American. Her parents, who immigrated from Sweden in the late 1800s, often spoke Swedish at home, yet they forced their children to speak English. As a result, my grandmother could understand several Swedish expressions, but she never developed any fluency in speaking the language. She and her parents viewed speaking English as an essential part of becoming American, and even today, she mentions her dad’s fluent English ability with pride. English was not only practical for conducting daily life in America, but it also became a status symbol, similar to the immigrant narratives described in Pavlenko’s article. However, I can’t help but think that a significant part of a person’s heritage is lost with the rejection of his or her native language. Language is a link to previous generations and can form an important part of someone’s personal or community identity. This history leads me to question how we teach English in an American-based ESL context today. What are some practical ways that we, as educators, can teach our students to utilize the power of English without rejecting their other cultural and linguistic heritages?

Holliday et al. also examine the role that culture can play in self-identity. The authors believe that people create and negotiate personal and cultural identity through communication, so we must view a person’s identity according to “thick description—seeing the complexity of a social event by looking at it from different aspects” (9). In addition, this non-essentialist perspective requires individuals to carefully consider their choices in the “cultural supermarket” in order to “attain maximum…credibility” (99). Identity, culture, and behavior are all interrelated. Because of the complexity of this relationship, I believe that we, as teachers, need to be careful to not only see our students as individuals, but also to see them as part of a social network in which they are using cultural elements in order to influence how they (and others) view themselves. Students may choose to assimilate to or deviate from social norms, depending on their own sense of identity. Thinking about the various elements that go into one’s self-identity can seem overwhelming, so I think it is important to make sure that students realize that their identities are always changing. Our classroom environments should provide places where they feel free to express themselves authentically, experiment, and ask questions.

Blog Post #1

Two main ideas in the readings stood out to me this week:
1. Culture is dynamic and amorphous.
2. Language and culture are connected, but not inextricably.

I have experienced life in various international and American communities, and I strongly agree that culture is always changing and difficult to capture. There are so many perspectives and nuances of culture! As Holliday, et al suggest, we must embrace a complex view of culture in which diversity is the norm (54). I believe that maintaining this view will allow us to not only develop solid relationships with students based on true understanding of their individual personalities (individual cultures!), but it will also help us avoid stereotypes that could isolate a student as “the other.” As Atkinson says, “knowing students individually also involves knowing them culturally” (643). Just this morning, I met a student at ELI who is a Brazilian of Japanese ethnicity. She was quite talkative, and I found myself surprised at her outgoing nature. Without consciously realizing it, I had stereotyped her due to her Japanese heritage and assumed that she would be quiet and reserved. (Ironically, I didn’t even consider any stereotypes associated with Brazilians!) Even though I recognize the flaws in the essentialist view of culture, I realize that this view influenced my first impressions. This experience reminded me of Atkinson’s third principle that “social group membership and identity are multiple, contradictory, and dynamic” (643). Everyone belongs to a variety of social and cultural groups, and it is impossible to pigeon-hole someone based solely on his/her membership to a single cultural group. I think that we, as both educators and learners, need to foster this idea that the concept of culture is dynamic and somewhat amorphous. That being said, I agree with Kumaravadivelu’s assertion that culture exists outside the bounds of definition; however, I also believe it still exists within the bounds of description. I think the trick is being able to describe patterns of behavior in order to talk about culture without perpetuating negative or limiting stereotypes. Believing that culture is diverse will allow us to build meaningful relationships in the classroom and take away limitations we might have due to cultural (mis)understandings.

In Chapter 2 of Cultural Globalization and Language Education, Kumaravadivelu shared information about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis that language determines thought and vice versa. Until my reading of this chapter, I had basically agree with this idea; however, Kumaravadivelu points out that if this theory were true, people would not be able to successfully translate languages or use English to communicate information from a variety of sociocultural perspectives (22). I also recognize that people who are bilingual are able to think and function effectively in two different languages without fundamentally changing their opinions or self-identities. So after learning about this information, I feel it is safe to say that language and culture are linked, but they don’t determine each other. Atkinson mentions that “language…cannot be developed without…developing knowledge of the sociocultural contexts in which that language occurs and for action in which it exists” (647). As an educator, I think it is important to teach students about the cultures of English-speaking communities insofar as it is useful for communication, but I do not need to pressure them to adapt their individual cultures to fit the expectations that some English speakers might have.

Question: All this discussion of culture got me to thinking…how much should we, as educators, directly engage issues of culture with our students?

Who I am...

My name is Alice, and I'm really excited about teaching English because I love meeting and hanging out with internationals. It's a great opportunity to learn, teach, and experience new cultures. Plus, I've lived and worked overseas, so I often feel a connection with people who are learning a new language or expanding their cross-cultural understanding.