Code Switching and Philosophy

Language seems like a relatively simple concept. Many people move through their lives for many years thinking that language is simply the words that we say to each other and write on paper and nothing more. I myself spent many years thinking that there was only one English language. I considered variations within the language--such as the differences between how people speak and how they write, Black English, British English, Tex-Mex, etc.--to be nothing more than simple variations with no further implication. I didn't think that these variations had anything to do with the identities of their speakers. 

Now I like, know that this is because I come from a pretty privileged background in many ways but also in terms of language, you know? Like the way me and my mom and dad speak English is pretty much "standard" or whatever, so I've never had the experience of my identity being oppressed by people telling me that I had to change the way I spoke to be part of a situation or to be professional or something. If you grow up speaking Black English or Tex-Mex or something like that then it's a totally different experience. When you grow up talking a certain way that becomes like, part of who you are. And then when a person who speaks these dialects goes somewhere and people like laugh at them or whatever, that must be a pretty crappy feeling. They're literally saying that you have to change part of who you are and how you express yourself to be taken seriously as an individual. Which is pretty messed up, if you ask me. 

No, like, you don't understand, this is so messed up! Or maybe you do understand. You probably understand if you didn't grow up speaking standard English, which means you would definitely know this better than me. But God, that's really so, so messed up I can hardly believe it. Language elitism is honestly the worst. Like, the privileged class (which I am of course a part of) is like hey, let's just glorify our own language and dismiss all other forms of speaking as unprofessional or improper, thereby systematically oppressing hundreds of millions of people across this great nation! Haha yay!" 

Of course, there do seem to be some benefits to have what is considered a "standard way" of speaking. Language barriers can seriously inhibit a conversation from achieving its full depth, value, or meaning. In theory having a "standard dialect" make it easier for people to operate in professional situations and across cultures. 

But obviously this ISN'T so cool when you take into consideration that this "standard dialect" just so happens to be the one that the most privileged people in the country speak. Oh yeah, not to mention that this also means that it becomes socially acceptable for people who speak the "standard dialect" to look down on people that speak other dialects and make fun of them and stuff. You ever look at those fricking "lists of words that should be banned in X year?" You think they're a harmless joke, but all of the words tend to originate from other dialects of English, especially black English. And we all think it's okay just because we pretend to not associate it with a particular race or class of people. It's just messed up, is what it is. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's cool to have a common form of the language that everyone can speak for the sake of communication, but if that means that people who don't speak it at home and in general are going to get their language and therefore their identities mocked and oppressed and discredited, then it is it really worth it? If anything, it's definitely something that we have to pay attention to. 

----- 

Overall, I think it wasn't that difficult to express my ideas in a code-switching way. If anything, it came more easily and more naturally to me to write this way, which I was not expecting as I am firmly in the habit of writing school assignments in "standard English." Although, in retrospect, I don't know why this surprised me, because when I switched codes I tried to write in the way that I speak naturally, which is obviously more comfortable for me than the way I write.

In general, I feel that I was still able to effectively communicate my point even though I was code switching. Although the vocabulary and sentence structure that I used were different from the standard, I feel like someone reading it could have understood what I was trying to say with relative ease. In addition, the style of writing that I used may have enhanced my writing in that it made it easier for me to convey the intensity and depth of my emotion. However, when writing like this I also tended towards oversimplification and exaggeration for effect. Although this is a problem, I believe that this isn't a reason that writing in such a way should be inherently condemned. One could easily work around this problem by fleshing out the exaggerations with more concise and detailed examples. 

Axe Anarchy for Him and for Her

The advertisement pictured above is for Axe Deodorant. Although in my experience this product has been primarily marketed towards males, it seems in this particular instance it is being marketed towards both men and women (although apparently only or at least primarily heterosexual men and women). The advertisement appears to take place at a gas station. The man is holding two jumper cables which appear to be electrically charged. The woman is holding a gas pump and gas is flowing from it, although it's not attached to a car and the gas is pouring out onto the ground. Both of the people seem to be failing to notice the hazards that they are creating for themselves and for others because they are too caught up in gazing into each other's eyes. They are so fantastically drawn to each other that they can't even manage to bring themselves back to reality for long enough to notice that they are putting themselves into a potentially fatal situation. The text in the corner draws the whole image together. Next to two bottles of Axe (one blue and one pink), the text reads "New Axe Anarchy, for Him + for Her. Unleash the chaos." 

This, of course, is what many people what from their romantic encounters. No one ever talks about being "sensibly in love" or "gently walking into love." We say "madly in love" or "falling in love" for a reason. Although this does not, of course, apply to everyone (the notable exceptions being asexual and aromantic people) many people desire a sense of unbridled passion in their romantic affairs. Especially amongst young people, we want things to be quick and exciting and thoughtless. That is the image and desire that this advertisement hopes to invoke. The young man and the young woman are so intensely attracted to one another that they forget that they are holding live jumper cables and an open gas pump. Imagine that--seeing someone so attractive that you forget that you are pumping gas and spill it on the ground just so you can stare into their eyes. But it gets better. Imagine that they, too, are so attracted to you that they forget that their jumper cables are live and carelessly let them fall to their side, just so that they can stare into your own eyes. Imagine having that kind of instant spark between you and someone that you like, within seconds of the two of you seeing each other. That sounds amazing to me. Axe is using this desire for that kind of relationship to sell their product. They want people to think that if they use this new Axe product, then they will be able to "unleash the chaos" and find that kind of wildly and thoughtlessly passionate relationship. If you are a girl and you use Axe Anarchy for Her, then maybe someday you'll encounter a boy that uses Axe Anarchy for Him and immediately embark on a reckless and passionate journey with that boy because of an unquenchable spark of attraction between the two of you. 

This advertisement is remarkably free of damaging gender stereotypes, at least if we are operating within the parameters of cisgender and heterosexual people. The boy and the girl are about the same height (although the girl is wearing high heels, the effect is still the same). They both appear to be the owners of cars, and the girl's even appears to be newer. An unfortunate trend that many advertisements demonstrate is the tendency to play on the "different kinds" of attraction that men and women supposedly feel, in which men supposedly feel greater sexual attraction while women feel greater emotional attachment. That is not the case in this advertisement. The attraction that the two people seem to feel for each other is implied to be the same in both degree and in nature. However, both of the people featured fall within Westernized societal parameters of "conventional attractiveness," with neither of them having any unconventional features--i.e., they are both thin white people. Furthermore, they conform more or less to expected gender presentation roles of cisgender girls and boys. Although the intent of the advertisement is to attract all people--regardless of whether or not they fit the physical image that they put forth in the picture--to buy their product in the hopes of finding a relationship that will sweep them off of their feet, this portrayal may have consequences beyond the advertiser's intent. As a consumer of an ad, this can make it seem or feel like one has to have those specific set of features in order to be included in this possibility of a wild romantic affair.

Who Do We Privilege?

Much of children's cultural socialization comes from television shows, most notably cartoons. The creators of these shows, presumably without realizing it, impart their own values and opinions of the world to the children that consume the shows by the manifestation of their beliefs in the events of the episodes.

One of the many children's cartoons that we have here in the United States is called The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. This show follows the lives of two children, Billy and Mandy, after they become friends with the Grim Reaper by winning a game of limbo against him. In spite of its fanciful premise, this cartoon has nevertheless proven to be a good sample of how we as a culture privilege certain groups over others.

Race/Nationality/English-Speaking: First and foremost, the majority of the characters in the television show are white, or are at least drawn with a light skin tone which presumably means that we are supposed to view them as white/European. Both of the main characters are white and all of the side and background characters are as well. Irwin--Billy and Mandy's African-American friend--and his family are the only characters of color that are featured on a recurring basis in the television show. This indicates to children that are watching the television show that white people are always supposed to be in the majority and that they are "normal," while people of color are an exception to the general rule. The notable exception to this is the fact that The Grim Reaper (called Grim for short), another main character, speaks with a Jamaican accent. The fact that this is presumably supposed to be funny to the audience indicates to children that people who don't speak flawless or non-accented English are somehow supposed to be considered funny and/or are not to be taken seriously.

Mental Illness and Capability: One of the prominent features of the show is the juxtaposition between the two main characters, Billy and Mandy. Mandy seems to enjoy schoolwork, and she is generally quiet. She also seems constantly frustrated with others and generally bored and uninterested in whatever is happening to or around her. Billy, on the other hand, is loud and energetic, and seems to find fun in everything that he does. In short, the creators of the show intended for Mandy to be "smart" and for Billy to be "not smart." Billy, coincidentally, is the brunt of many jokes. Mandy is constantly exasperated with his failure to understand what she is saying. Furthermore, Billy also has difficulty pronouncing certain words in the way that is commonly expected and has trouble reading situations/empathizing with others. Also coincidentally, all of these characteristics of Billy's are things are loosely similar to symptoms of various mental illnesses, such as ADHD and autism. In this way, the creators of the show are privileging people who do not have mental illness by making a character that is the brunt of many jokes one who exhibits the traits of a mentally ill person. This encourages the societal stigma against mentally ill people.

Gender, Sexuality, and Gender Roles: There are several instances in the segment of the show that I watched alone in which characters that break gender roles are stigmatized, thereby privileging people that do conform to gender roles. At one point, Grim discovers a bra in Billy's room. Billy yells, "I can explain!" This could have meant one of two things. Firstly, it could have been meant to indicate that Billy had some sort of involvement with a girl. By suggesting that a young boy is already having relations with a girl forcibly reasserts the character's heterosexuality and aggressively establishes heterosexuality as the privileged norm. Secondly, the joke could have been that Billy himself was wearing the bra in secret, and was surprised and ashamed that Grim found it in his room. By presenting this idea of a boy or a masculine person exhibiting feminine behavior as a joke/something that the person participating in the behavior would want to hide, children are made to believe that that is a funny thing at best and a bad thing at worst. This is, among other things, generally transphobic and privileges cisgender/gender conforming people. In addition, male characters that are supposed to be the brunt of jokes generally have more feminine characteristics, such as a high voice or the tendency to exhibit emotional vulnerability. Finally, the girls at Billy and Mandy's school who are mean to Mandy fulfill an extremely feminine stereotype. They seem brighter and more outgoing than Mandy, have higher voices, say the word "like" a lot, and enjoy femininity more than Mandy seems to. In this way, the show privileges masculinity by associating femininity with negativity and pettiness.

The Guest Bathroom

In my house, we have a little bathroom down the hall once you take a left from coming inside. It's a relatively small space. The floor is covered in large, dark brown tiles that have a certain shiny quality to them. There's a sink and a toilet, and a small window. The mirror over the sink is large with a thick black frame, and three lights (the only the the room) hang over it. The sink itself rests on two minimalistic black-brown drawers with silver handles. Rather than being a cavity in the top of the counter, the sink is a box-like apparatus that sits above the surface. The walls are painted a light green-yellow color, and there's a framed painting of a leaf whose colors are enhanced and brightened to match the color of the wall. Above the toilet, there's a bas-relief image of a lion with a spear in its side.

Overall, the impression that our guest bathroom is trying to give as "artistic." Unlike the bathroom that I use more frequently, which has far less cohesive in appearance and is strewn with my things (toothpaste, hairbrush, hair dryer, washcloths, old shampoo bottles, the list is endless), the guest bathroom has a distinct style that would be disturbed by messy things such as my personal care items. With this style, of course, comes the visual argument that my parents are stylish people. They chose to make their bathroom have a matching color scheme, a unique sink, a print of a pop-art leaf, and a bas relief image of a lion with a spear in its side. In so doing, they chose to make the visual argument that they are stylish people that have good aesthetic taste, throughout our entire house, right down to the bathroom.

Rhetorical Analysis Outline – Quit India Speech #1 (Mahatma Gadhi)

Purpose: To speak to the public about the Quit India resolution; to describe to them his points of view on various issues such as nonviolence and attitudes towards the British; to explain why it would be in everyone’s best interest for India to be free

Audience: Directly, the people of India (specifically those who are activists for the end of British Imperialism in India) and less directly, the British Empire

Context: All-India Congress had just ratified the Quit India resolution, India was at a tipping point in terms of freedom from British imperialism, the time was optimal for mobilizing public opinion in favor of freedom.

Part One: Explaining Himself and the Principles of his Mission

Purpose: To describe the nature of the movement that he is about to start and that the tactics and principles that he has been promoting have not changed. Anticipates opposition by making his position clear

Appeals: Ethos. Establishes himself as a respectable and familiar figure (“Let me, however, hasten to assure you that I am the same Gandhi as I was in 1920.”). Defends the credibility of his position on the subject of nonviolence in spite of recent changes (“I attach the same importance to nonviolence that I did then […] There is no real contradiction between the present resolution and my previous writings and utterances.”)

Techniques: Giving credibility/power to the audience (“You are right in asking that question”), anticipating opposition (the fact that he repeatedly calls himself the “same Gandhi” seems to suggest that he is anticipating accusations that he has changed), repetition (calls himself the same person he was in 1920 twice), reference to an authority figure (“God has vouchsafed to me a priceless gift in the weapon of Ahimsa”).

Effectiveness: Generally, very effective. All of his claims are credible, and placing this reassuring passage at the beginning of his speech ensures that those who agree with him but might be doubting him will be on board with him for the rest of the time that he is speaking.

Part Two: Explaining the Usefulness of Ahimsa/Nonviolence

Purpose: To explain to his audience why nonviolent protest is still an effective means to an end in terms of gaining independence from the British Empire; to distinguish India’s revolutionary drive for Independence from a selfishly motivated drive for power

Appeals: Ethos: Characterizes the power that India will gain from independence as a benefit of secondary importance, instead emphasizes its struggle for freedom as something that is motivated by the literal ideal of freedom alone. This portrays them as noble and idealistic rather than selfish and myopic (“Ours is not a drive for power, but purely a nonviolent fight for India’s independence” / “The power, when it comes, will belong to the people of India[…]”). Logos: Logically explains why Ahimsa is the most useful form of protest by describing alternatives and the factual benefits of nonviolence (“In a violent struggle, a successful general has been often known to effect a military coup and set up a dictatorship.” / “[…] but in Ahimsa, there is no final failure or defeat. I have faith, therefore, that if […] the big thing does happen, it will be because God wanted to help […].”). Pathos: Associates India’s struggle for independence with high morals and glory (“I believe that in the history of the world, there has not been a more genuinely democratic struggle for freedom than ours.”)

Techniques: Understatement (avoids the use of rhetorical hyperbole and keeps his language very straightforward in spite of the sensitive topic), anticipating opposition (establishes the credibility of their struggle as noble and just to avoid accusations of other motivations from the British “Ours is not a drive for power, but purely a nonviolent fight for India’s independence.”)

Effectiveness: Very effective. In this section of the speech, Gandhi uses skillful rhetoric in order to inspire his audience into action, but constantly qualifies his claims in a way that keeps all of his ideas very grounded in reality.

Part 3: Addressing the Issue of the British

Purpose: To discourage his constituents from breeding hate against British people and imperialism; to qualify himself and his movement in the eyes of the British empire; to make the British Empire more sympathetic to his movement in this way and to help them see the benefits to them of granting India its freedom

Appeals: Logos. Separates the British people from the British imperialism that they are trying to eradicate (“The people make no distinction between British imperialism and the British people. To them, the two are one. […] Our quarrel is not with the British people, we fight their imperialism”), explains how India’s independence makes logical sense and what usefulness lies in granting it its freedom (“It is not a happy position for a big country like India to be merely helping with money and material obtained willy-nilly from her while the United Nations are conducting the war. We cannot evoke the true spirit of sacrifice and valor, so long as we are not free.”), suggests that there is danger to Britain if they don’t withdraw and therefore it makes moral and logical sense for India to encourage them to do so (“It, therefore, becomes my duty to warn them of their danger even though it may, for the time being, anger them to the point of cutting off the friendly hand that is stretched out to help them.”)

Techniques: Understatement (does not mention the atrocities that Britain’s imperialism inflicted on India), anticipating opposition (the entire paragraph arguably serves the purpose of qualifying himself in the eyes of the British).

Effectiveness: Depends on which audience member is in question. To an Indian person, I imagine that this might be somewhat alienating, especially if they had been personally harmed by British imperialism. To a British person, however, this might have been very effective in terms of making them sympathetic to Gandhi’s cause.

General Evaluation: Revolution is a very sensitive topic, and leaders of revolutions have been known to use a myriad of techniques in order to obtain the following that they need. I think that in this speech, Gandhi has portrayed a significant level of skill in striking an even balance between inspiring pride and a certain degree of nationalism in his audience while at the same time maintaining a relatively friendly stance towards the British and his nonviolent ideals. This speech may not have been as effective in terms of mass mobilization as a speech that is fraught with pure nationalist rhetoric, but it is a remarkable and memorable speech nonetheless.

Style Imitation

Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie 

"I was born in the city of Bombay...once upon a time. No, that won't do, there's no getting away from the date: I was born in Doctor Narlikar's Nursing Home on August 15th, 1947. And the time? The time matters, too. Well then: at night. No, it's important to be more...On the stroke of midnight, as a matter of fact. Clock hands joined palms in respectful greeting as I came. Oh, spell it out, spell it out: at the precise instant of India's arrival at independence, I tumbled forth into the world. There were gasps. And, outside the window, fireworks and crowds. A few seconds later, my father broke his big toe; but his accident was a mere trifle when set beside what had befallen me in that benighted moment, because thanks to the occult tyrannies of those blandly saluting clocks I had been mysteriously handcuffed to history, my destinies indissolubly chained to those of my country." 

My imitation:

In my family, Thanksgiving is a...quiet affair. No, that's not enough, there's no getting away from the details: In my family, my parents and I spend Thanksgiving by ourselves. And what we do? That matters, too. So then: many things. No, I really must be more...going to New York City and Vermont, in fact. We've done so many things that I seem to have lost count. Oh, make it clear, make it clear: because the break is too short, we've never been to my grandmother's house for Thanksgiving. I hear the gasps of horrified familial conservatives. And, nearby them, people murmuring in confusion. I understand your confusion; but the lost time spent with my grandmother pales in comparison to the various Thanksgivings that we've had, because thanks to the fact that we're not obligated to visit family, we've had all kinds of extraordinary experiences.

War Speeches Comparison

Although World War II was a time in which many speeches were written and made, three stand out in particular: "Nation, Rise Up, and Let the Storm Break Loose" by Joseph Goebbels, "Jewel Voice Broadcast" by Emperor Hirohito, and "Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat" by Winston Churchill. Each represents a very different kind of speech: Goebbels was trying to reinvigorate the nation's morale after the stunning loss of the German attack on Stalingrad, Emperor Hirohito was trying to resign his nation to the fact that Japan had surrendered to the allies, and Churchill was issuing a call-to-arms to both motivate the nation to fight the war and prepare it for the utter turmoil that it would bring to all who lived there. However, there are many common claims, themes, and rhetorical devices in all of them. One of the most important--and revealing--devices that all three speakers use is hyperbole based on the fact that their nation is central to the perpetuated existence of mankind.

All three speeches make reference to the fact that, if his audience does not do what they ask, then the result will be the destruction of their nation and therefore of any meaningful human activity. Hirohito is the most dramatic in this sense, saying that should Japan continue to fight, not only would the nation itself be obliterated, but the rest of human civilization would as well. Goebbels is slightly less dramatic when he describes how unless the German army succeeds in defeating the Soviet Union, the entirety of Europe will have its culture destroyed by the invasion of Bolshevism (although he hints, making reference to America, that the "threat" of Bolshevism will spread elsewhere). Churchill is the least dramatic. He mentions how if they lose the war, the British way of life and everything that the empire stands for will be destroyed, then adds that mankind's desire to improve and "move through the ages" will also be destroyed as a direct result of this.

The important thing about this common theme is that all three of them are applying the same rhetorical tactic, apparently successfully, to vastly different situations with vastly different audiences. The British House of Commons, the Japanese populace, and the German people that Goebbels selected to hear his speech are all very different groups of people with very different values and assumptions, but somehow, they all respond to the idea that unless they act, unless they, as a nation, do something, then the very essence of what makes life worth living will be destroyed. Objectively, this idea seems ridiculous. Human initiative as a concept was not likely to be eradicated forever by the destruction of the British empire. Very wealthy and stable capitalistic economies were not likely to suddenly choose communism just because the Germans did not win the conflict with the Soviet Union. Nor was the destruction of the entire planet likely if Japan chose to seal its own fate and continue in its war with America. I think that the fact that the audiences of these speeches accepted these statements is very revealing both of the rhetorical genius of the speeches' authors and the prevailing sense of nationalism at the time. More than anything, I think that all three speeches prove that, by appealing to a group's sense of unity and differentiation from other groups, you can motivate that group to do or believe just about anything.