In Acts of Citizenship, professor Isen
discusses how 'citizenship' has been studied in terms of 'status', where ideas
of legality, boundaries, rights and obligations are the focus of study, and
'habitus' which are the "ways of thought and conduct that are internalized
over a relatively long period of time" (p. 15). Instead of these two ways
of studying 'citizenship,' he proposes a new perspective that focuses on
"acts," meaning "the moments when subjects constitute themselves
as citizens" (p.18). These acts seem to be characterized by
breaking with habitus and creating ruptures like the Montgomery Bus
Boycott and Marion Wallace Dunlop's hunger strike did. Additionally, acts of
citizenship seem to be oriented towards justice and involve acting and reacting
with others (p. 39).
In Acts of Citizen Sociolinguistics, professor
Rhymes explains that citizens sociolinguistics acts are ruptures that make
known our assumptions or ideologies about language, and that sociolinguistic citizenship
is staged through acts: acts of sociolinguistic wonderment and arrest. Very
much in alignment with professor Isen's understanding of who can
stage citizenship (not as status or habitus), professor Rhymes argues
that citizen sociolinguistics acts are enacted by everyday people. These
everyday people are actors that act and react with others. They create dialogue
and instead of shutting it down or fleeing from it, they remain in it.
In
a speech on October 20, Chilean president Piñera said, “we are at war against a
powerful, implacable enemy that respects nothing and nobody.” If you look at
the images and videos circulating on the Internet, you would probably agree
with the president. The problem is that Pinochet, the dictator that ruled Chile
from 1973 to 1989, said exactly the same thing in 1986 after surviving an
assassination attempt orchestrated by the FPMR (a Chilean revolutionary and
Marxist-Leninist organization). So, as the president declared Chile to be in a
state of war, social media exploded with acts of citizen sociolinguistic
arrest.
@Pklesse tweets: War against who? The people are not armed! @Jessicamir7
tweets: yeah, sure! Him against the people that demand solutions and [he]
refuses to have a dialogue! He is totally lost!! But of course, not everybody is
against the president @AtilloPetrocelli engages in the dialogue and responds:
The War against the Venezuelan Regimen, why is it that nobody makes the
connection? @yajadiaz7 retweets: do not be unwary/incautious all of this is caused
by the Sao Paulo forum, Cubans and Venezuela finances everything. While these
are rather opposing comments, an act of citizen sociolinguistic arrest made by
a regular social media user sparked a long conversation about what the
president meant and why he should or should not have said that and rather than
trolling each other, these users kept the conversation alive.
Declaring the country at war was a mistake that the president
apologized for. Unfortunately his apology came too late. By the time he
apologized to the nation, the military had already committed several human
rights violations that included (sexual) torture and assassinations. In a new manifestation,
indignant citizens took the conversation and discontent to the streets and in a
massive act of citizenship 1.2 million people enacted civil disobedience by
marching in the streets of Santiago to challenge the current political system.
Professor
Rhymes argues that citizen sociolinguistics thrives in spaces where people talk
about language and share their stories. I think that what has happened in Chile
during the last ten days is an example of it. Not only have citizen
sociolinguists questioned the declaration of war made by the Chilean president but
many citizen sociolinguistics arrests have taken place around the use of
politically loaded words such as ‘toque de queda/curfew,’ ‘lumpen (as in
lumpenproletariat),’ ‘evasión/ evasion,’ ‘vandalismo/vandalism’ and ‘privilegios/privileges’.
We are at war (Pinochet and Piñera):
1.2 million people protest in Santiago:
Protest in Santiago: Buses being burned.
First lady talks about an "alien" invasion and having to give up privileges and share.
Questions
for the class:
The
Chilean police shot Romario Veloz, a 26-year-old Ecuadorian, during one of the
protests that took place in Chile. Many people argue that he did not have the
right to protest against the Chilean government and are not particularly
concerned with his death. One of the problems is that he left behind his
four-year-old daughter and the rest of his family is in Ecuador.
1. What are your thoughts regarding him acting as
a citizen without having the status to do so?
2. If citizenship is understood as “acts,” what
is the responsibility of the Chilean government towards this person who I
believe was acting as any citizen would have?
3. What acts of citizenship or citizen
sociolinguistics have you [not] enacted lately? Why?
Thanks for posting such a relevant post to the news, Israel! To answer your third question, it's a privilege to get to explain to my students what certain slang expressions mean as well as expose them to different styles of pronunciation. In particular, I had to teach a class that solely focused on pronunciation and I saw this as a opportunity to help develop which I now know as "citizen sociolinguistic wonderment" concerning what they heard around them. I had contacted Betsy before I was even in ELX to ask her for some advice. Something that I found extremely beneficial was to have a blog post where the students chose someone from their own home language who they admired, why they did, and what they thought about their English. They had to include a clip of them speaking in their post submission as well. Through this exercise and as well as the class, we were able to appreciate the varieties of English that there is and challenged the notion of a "native speaker".
ReplyDeleteThank you, Isra! Yes, I agree, this is a fantastic noticing on your part--pointing out how these comments work as acts of citizen sociolinguistics because they constitute these participants as citizens. The way these acts work seem to be emergent--depending on how people take them up. Do they recognize the echo of Pinochet? Do they see the absurdity of waging war against one's own citizenry? And naming it a war?
ReplyDeleteLike Maria, I really appreciate your last question: What acts of citizen sociolinguistics have you enacted lately? I want us all to answer this today! Also, a few follow-up questions might be: How did this act work to constitute you as a citizen? What type of citizen? How do these acts differ from more organized efforts directed at social justice?
One more follow-up question: Could we call the statement "Estamos en guerra" an act of Citizen Sociolinguistic Repression? Attempting to name a reality and thus shape it for all the citizenry--And the responses to that repression "Acts of Citizen Sociolingistic Resistence"? What might other examples of these types of acts look like?
ReplyDeleteI'm really interested in this idea of citizen sociolinguistic repression and responses to this form of repression as acts of citizen sociolinguistic resistance! (First of all, thank you Israel for introducing and contextualizing what has been going on in Chile.) After reading Israel's blog post, I immediately thought of the way language in Western journalism shapes a narrative about Taiwan that disregards its reality.
DeleteWe're right about to have class, so I can elaborate further there or here later in a separate post, but I wanted to quickly share this article that might demonstrate another example of resistance acts: https://medium.com/american-citizens-for-taiwan/lost-in-translation-how-language-is-used-to-obfuscate-taiwans-reality-5b0d11a1a844
Additionally, a satirical piece that might help contextualize this a little more: https://laorencha.blogspot.com/2019/08/in-move-likely-to-anger-china-taiwan.html?fbclid=IwAR0y779Ki8MxruPTAYYf8GaCNZYk6Kw3XaZJQUVoGx-am5ZQEFEyOl3qd8I
Hi! I appreciate your post Israel. I would like to answer along the lines of your second question. The person was sort of an “immigrant” in that country and they are saying they are not concerned for the death and repercussions it caused since he was not a citizen. I do not know much else about the story about the Ecuadorian, but interestingly this reminds me of when people pose this similar situation for “dreamers” or children who come to America who are not American by “citizenship”. These people could still be fighting for rights pertaining to the American people because they feel American through way of lifestyle, language, culture and most obviously from living their lives in this country. It is extremely common for people to associate and identify with more than one culture anyway. Also, people in this country seem to almost treat the situation the same like we are not responsible for what happens to people who come here like the families in the detention camps and being separated. Why should the country where this is happening not be held accountable for these deaths? So many things to consider and question and so little empathy.
ReplyDeleteHi Israel, thank you so much for your post. I have been thinking a lot about citizenship as well as I have been following the news in Hong Kong very closely.
ReplyDeleteI have always struggled with the idea of citizenship because I think it is a very strange subject (at least in my own life)! How much of citizenship is performed? How much of it is implicitly inherit within a person? In taking/teaching literature courses, I have always struggled with the question(s): “Who/What is (an) American/Taiwanse/Chinese?”
I often wonder if absorbing and talking about the news and voting counts enough toward citizenship. Or does one’s paying taxes, organizing/protesting, or simply existing or participating in our society count as citizenship?
So to answer your third question more directly: I have paid attention like I always have. I have tried my best to adhere to the laws and values that have been passed onto me. I have thought about my privileges and my responsibilities. But, I have not participated in activism in the conventional sense. I do not argue with or try to persuade strangers. I could be doing nore.