and reach thousands of daily visitors
21 September
No 1220
Two languages
Cultures and institutions
develop unique languages, which have a profound effect on voice. These
languages shape and support or inhibit the expression of voice. The
powers-that-be create the language in which the less powerful have to
seek fluency. Fluency in institutional language gives oppressed groups
an advantage (Freire, 1998). By being expert in their own life situation
and by means of exposure to the language of the dominant group, their
perspective is broader than those with a limited viewpoint.
Postmodern philosophers such as Foucault (1991) illustrate how language,
being a mechanism of exerting power, is particularly significant in both
mechanisms of oppression and strategies of liberation. One can
`dominate' through the control of language, but equally, one can
challenge and resist by means of capturing and making use of the
language of the `dominator: Foucault asserts that by being fluent in the
language of the oppressor, the subjugated are able to strategically use
language to mount resistance. They have the ability to understand the
codes of the dominant group and by being fluent in their own language
are able to exclude the dominant group from understanding what is being
said. This analysis can be applied to the relationship between young
people in care and the various care professionals with whom they come
into contact.
Professional control over resources impacts on service deployment and
operation, as well as the management and practices of the services, and
this is reflected in language. Services provided in the context of
professional classification call for the designation of a client group.
In this case, the client group is young people in care. The worker holds
power over the client as an individual by having the power to define
eligibility, allocate services and elicit compliance by providing access
to, or threatening the loss of, resources (De Montigny,1998). The
ideological power of the institution, enacted through service allocation
and operating procedures, defines the clients in the images determined
by their categorisation (Hugman, 1991).
In social interactions between young people and practitioners,
boundaries are put in place through three dimensions (value judgments,
social distance and knowledge). In language, boundaries are made real by
a range of lexical strategies, hierarchical orderings, and dividing
practices (Foucault, 1978). Riggins (1997) provides some examples:
Expressions that are most revealing of the boundaries separating Self
and Other are inclusive and exclusive pronouns and possessives, such as
we and they, us and them, and ours and theirs (Riggins, 1997 p.8).
An examination of such usage of language reveals much about how young
people in care view themselves in relation to each other and the system
which provides their care.
KIM SNOW
Snow, K. (2006) Bilinguilism: the two languages of young people in care. Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care. Vol. 5, 2 August/September. pp. 45-55
References
De Montigny, G. (1998). In the company of strangers: being a child in
care. In I. Hutchby & J. Moran-Ellis (Eds.), Children and social
competence: arenas of action. London: Falmer Press.
Foucault, M. (1978). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison (2nd
ed.). (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell , C. Gordon & P.
Miller (Eds.), The Foucault elect: studies in governmentality. London:
Simon & Schuster.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: education for critical
consciousness. New York: Continuum Publishing Company.
Hugman, R. (1991). Power in caring professions. Hampshire: MacMillan
Education.
Riggins, S. (1997). The rhetoric of othering. In S. Riggins (Ed.), The
language and politics of exclusion: others in the discourse. California:
Sage.
