Bourdieu pouints out that : "...the relaxation of articulatory tension', which leads, as Bernard Laks has pointed out, to the dropping of the final 'r' and 'l'...is associated with rejection of the censorship which propriety imposes, particularly on the tabooed body, and with the outspokenness whose daring is less innocent as it seems since, in reducing humanity to its common nature- belly, bum, bollocks,grub, guts, and shit- it tends to turn the social world upside down, arse over head" (88).
According to Bourdieu, politeness is inflicted onto the lower class by the upper, and it seems to me that by speaking plainly without any of proprietary hindrance, the lower class gains some sort of power through their language use and perhaps this is why politeness is so stressed. The fact that upper class speech limits the view of the natural body, suggests a self-imposed godlike nature and deems the body as the opposite of what it is, unnatural and perhaps even filthy. The lower class sees the body for what it is and talks about it freely.
He goes on to say that "from the standpoint of the dominated classes, the adoption of the dominant style is seen as as a denial of social and sexual identity, a repudiation of the virile values which constitute class membership" (88). So there is a clear link between natural speaking and belonging in the lower classes, though it would seem to the upper class that impolite speaking would be an alienating factor. But there is also boundaries placed on the lower class, for if they do change their way of speaking, they may not be accepted by other members of the class. It seems to me that there are rules for both classes, each with limiting factors.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Linda Daly
ReplyDeleteYour argument is valid but that assumes a unity in voice and thought of the individuals making upthe classes. Cannot one of one class transced, another and use the same language? Or perhaps create a new language, an unknown, that speaks for the individual?
I think that whatever the upper class do, they use their superior linguistic capital in order to trod upon those beneath them. If the lower classes exert their independence by loving their bodies and by using strong language, they are vulgar and looked down on by the upper classes (and forced into silence when they are not around those of their own class), and when a lower class person tries to speak above their station, they are ridiculed by their own class as being effeminate or of being "hyper-correct."
ReplyDeleteThe elite have self-imposed limitations, but the lower class folk (who are their severest critics, no doubt) are too scared to do much other than wag their tongues behind the backs of the elite. Americans, for example, love to discuss celebrities and to trash their lifestyles or how they look without their make-up, and yet if they met that celebrity they would fall all over themselves or stay silent out of embarrassment.
In response to Linda, yes this is possible, but it is not likely given the high amount of encouragement that people are given to stay within their class boundaries. Average people, with families, jobs and mortgages to contend with, do not often have the time or energy to go beyond the status quo of their class (the great men and women in history have often risen in the ranks at the expense of these things). Plus, people can speak, but without being heard (or understood) their words are useless. Until someone has earned linguistic capital and competence in whatever class they aspire to be in, they have not yet earned the right to be heard.
It seems that all classes have limitations of behavior and language. The question of authenticity is important to all people. We strive for it and are quick to call out those who are not authentic. I definitely see Emily's point about not being encouraged to change classes. I'm not sure if there is a way out of this, Linda.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Bordieu women do have a limited "way out" through marriage "which is their main if not their only avenue of social advancement and through which they circulate upwards" (50). This makes it tricky for the male who "marries beneathe him" and undoubtedly costs him social capital.
ReplyDelete