-Eldridge Cleaver, 1997
In the previous lecture, the class discussed the development and conceptual underpinnings of the “politics of respectability” strategy embraced by many African American leaders which aimed to integrate their community into the dominant white society. In his book Race, Crime, and the Law, Randall Kennedy concisely characterizes the fundamental idea behind this strategy:
“The principal tenet of the politics of respectability is that, freed of crippling, invidious, racial discriminations, blacks are capable of meeting the established moral standards of white middle-class Americans.”
After discussing the “sagging” example given in class, this topic reminded me of an article on African American Vernacular English (AAVE), widely and incorrectly referred to as “Ebonics,” written by linguistics professor Geoffrey Pullum at the University of Edinburgh. The article, titled “African American Vernacular English is Not Standard English with Mistakes,” eloquently discusses the decision of the 1996 school board in Oakland, California to use AAVE as a means to teach Standard English. In particular, he aims to disarm the scholars that perpetuated the subsequent rage surrounding the decision. From this, I found the popular prejudice toward AAVE as more subtle and enlightening than the example of “sagging” given in class. Most significantly, Pullum provides an analysis that highlights a direct contradiction of my feelings toward enacting politics of respectability today as opposed to the 1830-1880 period discussed in class.
To be honest, I had never truly considered the adoption of politics of respectability as a vocalized national objective. In general, the idea behind the strategy makes logical sense, and there is no doubt in my mind of its high potential for effectiveness. If a person wants respect from a certain society, then obviously that person must adhere to the rubric of “values” inherent in that society. Unfortunately for African Americans in the 19th century, “American society” was synonymous with “white society,” implying that African Americans would therefore be forced to submit themselves to the judgment of their white oppressors. This is an obvious implication given the previously generalized logic, yet it emphasizes the source of my anger when discovering that many leaders in the community advocated politics of respectability as a national incentive. Do not misunderstand. I cannot imagine the torment that African Americans experienced during this time period on a personal level nor the difficulties implicit in unifying and developing such a deeply oppressed community, yet the overwhelming disappointment remained. I found myself experiencing the popular phenomenon in which a person, watching a movie that he or she has already seen, feels the urge to confront the protagonist in order to change some aspect of the predetermined and familiar plot: “These people stole everything from you! Your history! Your families! Your humanity! You cannot give in like this!”
Immediately, I remembered the article by Pullum and realized an enormous contradiction within my expectations for others in my everyday life. Previously when I heard a person use the AAVE dialect, I would always wish for him or her to submit to society’s standards and conform to Standard English. I would always wish for him or her to submit to these politics of respectability that I now despise. The fallacy that using AAVE implies an inferior intelligence was never assumed back then, but my silent requests for them to submit were purely out of a desperation for them to transcend the alleged determinism incident with being African American. Regardless of what went through my mind, there always existed this idea of submission, and in hindsight, it bothers me that my immediate conscious reaction was not wishing society to respect AAVE. This highlights my profound closed-mindedness to the importance of culture. I too often thought of society as some unstoppable and unchangeable force invariant to everything but time and a few revolutionary individuals. Therefore, the burden of change was placed accordingly on the individual. This notion was wrong.
While I do still realize the efficiency of adopting politics of respectability, the conscious thought requesting someone else to conform, especially as a white male, remains completely intolerable. There are many things holding back the African American community from progressing in society. Economically, the unemployment and poverty rates for blacks are nearly twice that of whites. Socially, gang violence and general crime continue to tear apart poor African American communities, and educationally, the school systems in charge of the inner city are failing. While some of these are getting better, the point I am trying to make is that the major problem is not the way African Americans “sag” or speak “incorrectly.” In contrast, I now strongly believe the problem remains with the perspective of society. Leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Eldridge Cleaver were so obsessed with adhering to politics of respectability that they ignore the wide array of evidence (example) supporting the Oakland school district’s decision to embrace “the primary language” of its students in education. If we as a whole society would simply contextualize our differences, then modern controversies like “sagging” or “Ebonics” will show themselves as profound manifestations of a rich culture and history, and the United States might finally fulfill its 235 year old promise of the equal opportunity “American Dream.”
I understand your point. I do see and to a degree connect with the frustration you feel with this seemingly paradox: individual’s conformity (or even a race) in order to fit into the larger society versus this ideology of freedom that American people support and stand. These two philosophies are clashing. It has happened in the past, present, and possibly in the future as well. But there is one thing I would like to point out. It is in us, this natural instinct to adapt the surrounding factors in order to survive. And that was exactly what the African Americans want to, need to do at that time. They yearned for acceptance, and indeed they deserve that acceptance the society owned them. They simply want to create and reserve for their “human space”. Plus, the definition of freedom and the conception of racism were still transforming. Therefore, it was impossible at that time for the predominately white society to contextualize “our” differences.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting post to me, because when I started my freshman year at Rhodes, I didn't understand why some groups of people just HAD to fit into the stereotypes of their group. For instance, I didn't understand what propelled young black guys to sag their pants. While I still don't understand what sagging your pants accomplishes, I realize, after two years at Rhodes, that you can't just expect someone to not be themselves, and not eat what they eat, talk how they talk, listen to the music they want to listen to, and walk how they walk. If people of different races and sexualities suppress who they are, how can people respect them for who they are? I almost think that it's an insult to these groups to ask them to conform. I feel like the ultimate goal of ending prejudice is to show that blacks, gays, Muslims, or any other group of people really, are not hurting anyone by doing what they do. They are just having pride in themselves and acting how they like.
ReplyDeleteThis post brings up a really great point that people using ebonics are embracing their culture and they should not have to change that. No one should have to alter themselves to fit societies expectations; people should be who they are and everyone should be able to respect that. However, I do also understand the move to eliminate the use of ebonics. Ebonics came into use because it was how slaves, who were not allowed to be educated, spoke. Society did not allow them to attend schools or to take English classes. So why, now, would people still chose to represent their culture as uneducated? Why would someone not want to show how far his or her race has come? Are there not other, better ways to preserve culture while still proving oneself to be intelligent and educated? For example, music, food or stories do the same thing as using ebonics except ebonics focuses on a disadvantage that made slaves be seen as inferior to whites. These other things were still able to thrive despite much oppression, so would it not be better to accent those cultural difference and keep those alive? I completely understand and respect preserving one’s culture, but I think we also need to address the drawbacks that comes with it.
ReplyDeleteI have never looked at this idea in this way. I too have to admit that when I hear people using AAVE dialect I wish they wouldn't, guess that makes me close minded as well. It never crossed my mind that it is actually part of how they were brought up and that asking them to change would be like asking me to change the way I speak. Making it a political idea does not make sense, we do not need to conform as a society to all be treated equally. We need to just be more open minded and accept people for who they are. We should pride ourselves on our diversity not look down upon it.
ReplyDeleteI also hadn’t thought about this topic from this point of view. To me, the whole idea of the politics of respectability raises the question, what is respectable? To what standard are we holding ourselves and our peers? To what society are we trying to conform? There will always be cultural differences, and so there are a number of arenas in which the politics of respectability come into play: for this class, we talk about white society and African society. Ryan’s post brings up the interesting point of wishing for individuals using the AAVE dialect to “submit to society’s standards and conform to Standard English” – I’m the same way. I sometimes find it difficult to understand and it doesn't make a good first impression on me. However, it’s much more important to recognize that the culture from which it stems is just as important as someone else's culture – regardless of individual race or ethnicity.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with Daniel’s comment about how you can’t expect someone to not be who they are, or to deny who they are in an effort to conform to someone else’s definition of what is ok or respectable. It’s an interesting question to ask how we can respect people for who they are if they “suppress who they are” in order to fit in to someone else’s notion of what is respectable.
While I agree with the necessity of accepting a people’s culture, I think opponents of AAVE are sometimes misconstrued. I have heard many people argue that AAVE has become immensely more popular in today’s society as it illustrates black youth’s yearning to sound cool. However, one cannot argue that AAVE is only sustained by today’s culture, as it has been present in this country since its conception. Due to the lack of schooling, the majority of slaves did not have the opportunity to learn “grammatically correct” English. In this sense it is part of the African American culture, but I am not completely sold that young African Americans see this type of English as a greater representation of something from their past. I do not think they continue to use AAVE to preserve their culture, rather I feel that most speak similarly to the people in their own social circles. I see nothing wrong with this, as I value a variety of different styles of language. A general point I would like to additionally make is that when people cannot understand another group’s style of language, they are often driven to form prejudices against them. For example, when you are on the phone with an airline representative who has a strong accent, you often are driven to anger and frustration (at least I am) solely due to the lack of communication. If someone’s accent impairs communication greatly, it is more likely to be frowned upon. While I concede that this may not be the main reason for most people to oppose AAVE, I think there are people that see AAVE in a more negative light solely because of the problems it can lead to in communication.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post! You bring up a very interesting point, that I'm sure most people have never considered about the origins of what we might refer to as "ebonics" or AAVE. However, I will say that I think the way that ebonics is used today is not necessarily a retention of culture from the past. I definitely agree with Farrell on the fact that the enduring nature of ebonics is most likely more social than anything else. Also today ebonics can sometimes act as a a kind of cultural marker, for typically lower class blacks, since they do not use what the majority of people perceive to be "correct" grammar, we tend to think that they are not well educated. Obviously this assumption has no basis, it is similar to assuming that someone with a very think southern accent is stupid. The way someone talks has very little bearing on their intelligence, however it will unfortunately affect the way they are perceived by others.
ReplyDeleteWhat an excellent post. I tend to agree more with Farrell and Jenna, though. If someone wants to speak in AAVE that's fine. But all students the "correct" grammar of the society they live in is very important. It's imperative that everyone is able to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing. Being able to present yourself in a professional manner is an important skill. Cultural retentions are important and I do value them. No one is advocating, however, for Old English to be accepted as a form of normal communication. In our lifetimes we have seen the rise of "chatspeak," yet we would never use chatspeak in a paper. My point is that there is a correct vernacular in every society and having different standards for different groups of people is not doing anyone any favors. If an individual wants to speak using AAVE that's fine, but they should be taught how to converse in standard English as well.
ReplyDeleteI’m an English and Film major. I am absolutely fascinated by words, sentences, accents, dialects, and pretty much every other form of communication. Five years ago, I undoubtedly was a member of the group that believed “ain’t ain’t a word.” That being said, I’ve come to see things a little bit differently now. Regardless of where or how it began, AAVE is now a part of the American vernacular. If I come to read something that includes AAVE, I no longer scoff at it and brush it aside, I see it as a defining characteristic that the author (or a specific character) is trying to convey. It is a part of that person’s identity. Do I think that AAVE is going to become the predominant dialect in America anytime soon? No. BUT the idea of trying to push it out of the American vernacular entirely would be ridiculous! While I do not necessarily agree with the idea of using AAVE as a means to teach Standard English, I do believe that it presents a very interesting discussion in higher education. To an extent, accosting those for the use of AAVE is essentially robbing them of their voice. AAVE is almost a greater entity than the proper English language because it does not just define what you have been taught, but rather what you’ve learned, how you’ve learned it, where you’ve learned it from, and who you’ve learned it from.
ReplyDelete