Comments on: Free language choice?!

By: Victoria Benz

Victoria Benz — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 01:51:16 +0000

But even IF parents actually walk the walk (which is indeed not a given) and enrol their children in a bilingual school, a “choice” is often denied by influential policies, and (tied to them) funding, ideologies, the avilability of bilingual programmes etc. As Monzó (2005) reports, by regulating the provision of information to families and undermining teacher efforts, even parents who actively enrolled their children in a bilingual programme, didn’t get to experience bilingual education. The teacher had to teach in English and was given a consent form to be signed by parents, which said that children would now be immersed in a structured English class. Sad…

By: Ingrid Piller

Ingrid Piller — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 23:59:46 +0000

In reply to Khan.

Thanks, Christof and Khan, for an interesting conversation. It’s fascinating to see into which different directions the question of ‘free choice’ can go in two different contexts. Just to add two more ‘layers’:
(a) I’m intrigued by the way ‘choice’ has become a sacred cow of neoliberalism while actually precluding choice: what I mean is that everyone thinks that ‘choice’ is great and the more choice the better, but excessive (and usually superficial) choice can actually be quite negative: psychologically, there is the paradox of choice that people become increasingly dissatisfied the more choice they have (see Barry Schwartz). Politically, this plays out quite tragically with school choice: underfunded public schools become unattractive and private schools have lots of different bells and whistles … for a tax payer, to be spending a third of your income on education because the public school doesn’t offer languages is extremely unfree in my view – and that in the country that likes to lecture the rest of the world on “free choice” …
(b) I’m also intrigued by the fact observed by Khan that people mostly say one thing and do another. E.g., most people think bilingualism is great but how many actually go to such lengths as Christof? Or demand that their school provides meaningful language education? Another interesting ‘paradox of choice’ … choosing the talk vs. choosing the walk …

By: Khan

Khan — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 23:17:08 +0000

Thanks very much Christof for taking time to respond to me. Much appreciated by me. Please let me tell you why I asked you the question of agency and social change. In Post-colonial social linguistic studies especially from Asia, Africa there has been over emphasis on historicity and this over emphasis often obfuscates the important roles local elites have played out throught the colonial 18 and 19 centuries. Such scholars simplify very complex struggles between different ethnolinguistic groups during the colonial times. Is it not easy to blame for all the current ills on colonisers? I see the colonial and post-colonial history as very complex involving linguistic contest between different groups. In my doctoral study, what I find very fascinating is that the social actors respond to policy in very complex ways. Most of the time their claims/ sentiments and their personal linguistic practices are at odds. I come to realise that it is perhaps most difficult for me to theorise people’s discursive responce to policy in institutional settings. Hope it makes my point clearer. Thanks once again for the reply.

By: Christof Demont-Heinrich

Christof Demont-Heinrich — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:49:57 +0000

Khan,
Of course there is always room for agency, it’s not an either/or proposition, as your leg analogy illustrates, though I do not believe it’s always a 50/50 proposition. Often – and I do not think you are doing this – within the various disciplines for which the question of agency/determination is crucial (that’s pretty much all of them), one side, say those who see the world mostly in terms of agency, will paint the other side in such extreme terms as to imply that the other side believes there is no agency, or “the” determination side will imply the other side thinks it’s only about agency. I view human beings as in general (notice I’m qualifying here) being largely directed by the aggregated historical “choices” of those around them. Sure, individuals, or groups of individuals could make up an individual language, but, if no one else makes the “choice” to use it, then no meaningful change happens. I view social change as occurring generally when groups pool their collective agency/power to push for change. Eventually, they sometimes make significant headway, though, often, they do not as other social actors who do not want change pool their social resources to fight the given (linguistic) change turn them back. In short, I lean toward the “determination” end of the continuum, but I do see what is most often limited room for slow social change. Indeed, the question of how we explain social change, or lack thereof, fascinates me — and vexes me 😉

By: khan

khan — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:40:25 +0000

Thanks Christof for an interesting post. While I agree with you that there is no such thing as free choice, dont you think choices are contested, created, fought?

Thinking about my lingusitic trajectory, I was born in a family which was located in a social position where access to powerful languages/ genres/ variety was not an easy possibility and I lived the experiences of navigating my way through such strong institutionalised linguistic hiearchies and regulating mechanism.
Am I right in concluding that there are always agentive spaces?

Thanks

Khan

By: Khan

Khan — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 11:56:00 +0000

Dear Christoff,

Very interesting observations on free choice. If we buy the argument of complete lack of agency, how is then change is possible. I also feel that most of things are decided but I also think that spaces are created, contested. For instance your blog and academic engagment with promoting multilingualism is one such effort. The point I am trying to make can perhaps be better understood by a very famous analogy. Some person A approached Hazrat Ali ( Caliph) and asked about the question of freedom: ‘ How far am I free” asked the gentlman, The caliph replied to the person standing nearby him. ” Lift his both legs while standing” The person could only lift one. The caliph replied, ‘ you can lift one leg but not both” I dont know if I am able to express my point with clarity or not,

Khan