4 ms·

I am against institutional language standards that exist in some languages, because using the language freely how you want is a part of basic freedom. That bein

I am against institutional language standards that exist in some languages, because using the language freely how you want is a part of basic freedom. That being said, speaking with some level of control lets us exchange thoughts in a more organized way, and not just the same bag of soundbites all the time. It also shows, as a small thing, that we value striving for some improvement. It feels that it becomes an increasingly minority position, and what's left in the discussion is at best intelligentsia's coping mechanisms making use of isolated facts of history. Yes, there were always "lowbrow" language and culture, but what matters is the context of the whole stylistic gradient functioning. Of course there has been some legitimacy in these changes initially, when compared strictly to the oppressive, conformist "bourgeois" "high modern" culture of let's say 1850-1950. History moves in random directions, so who knows.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
> Yes, there were always "lowbrow" language and culture Isn't the of concept of low brow a strictly oppressive one? It only serves to further strip power from those outside the dominant group. When the lowbrow group become dominant then their style and norms become the standard of highbrow.
- foo_foo_can_do 3y ago
  well if you think of all forms of expression as being equal but for their regard by society then yeah, but that's not how anyone seems to live. It's not that simple people think they are sophisticated simply because they are in power, they instead believe there is no such thing as sophistication. you also assume there is one form of expression per "group" and not a variance in brow position across groups. I mean, if you're going to apply this foucauldian logic at least do some legwork to say something new.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    I didn't realise my belief had to be novel in order to be valid. Or is it only when you associate my belief with the boogeyman of Foucault? > you also assume there is one form of expression per "group" I didn't assume that or imply it in any way. I understand that there various linguistic strata and they each have their own substrata. I still stand by the assertions I made above, as while there are inter-group power dynamics at play in the defining of "brow level" there are of course also intra-group power dynamics.
- stereolambda 3y ago
  Note the scare quotes. I used an imperfect word to suggest a crude mode of communication where we don't care about communicating clearly or on subject, or human aspirations beyond biology and prestige, or emphasizing respect to yourself and to the other person, or maintaining connection to the long term culture and history of thought. That not this equals power is an interesting meme. Powerful people are usually crude (police, army, politicians, business magnates, aristocracy and the like isn't known for being very subtle either). Of course with humanities you can creatively construct almost any reading to the culture and society if you want to "prove" what you want. If you strictly equate cultural practices with social groups that can be dominant or not, there is already some gross simplification going on.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    I saw the scare quotes and was going to mention that in my comment as I was aware you weren't necessarily using the word in a derogatory way. I chose not to as I thought it would be clear enough. Apologies for not being more explicit on my reading of your words. > a crude mode of communication where we don't care about communicating clearly or on subject I didn't read this from it though. That seems somewhat orthogonal to the content of the article? > or emphasizing respect to yourself and to the other person, or maintaining connection to the long term culture and history of thought. This I do actually take issue with though. This is an example of what I meant above. I grew up speaking a "non-standard" English and I can say that I've never felt that using it was reflective of a lack for respect for myself or the people around me. Saying that someone should speak in a more "standard" or "high brow" way that comes unnaturally to them in order to show respect is an example of the power dynamic I'm talking about. I come from Northern Ireland and my speech is heavily inflected. If I go to England and speak with people who have more linguistic dominance then I notice a change in how in received. There is an assumption that I'm less intelligent when I use my Hiberno-English, like saying "they learned me how to write" rather than "they taught me how to write." If the English of my home was dominant then we would see this effect in reverse. Same for wanting to "maintain a connection to long term culture or thought." Those cultures and thoughts win out on the long term because of the power plays. How many languages have died out in the course of colonialism? Do think the speakers of those languages didn't want a connection to the history of thought, or did we just ignore them and forget them because they lacked the power to assert themselves? > Of course with humanities you can creatively construct What does this mean? Are you saying that your assertions are more rooted in hard science than mine? Or the whole field of social linguistics is hogwash? Then why have this conversation at all? > If you strictly equate cultural practices with social groups that can be dominant or not I didn't. > Powerful people are usually crude Is this an oversimplification? Are non powerful people usually not crude? This is the point: the sophistication is not an inherent trait of the language; it's socially constructed and perpetuated through social power dynamics.

AlecSchueler 3y ago

> Yes, there were always "lowbrow" language and culture Isn't the of concept of low brow a strictly oppressive one? It only serves to further strip power from those outside the dominant group. When the lowbrow group become dominant then their style and norms become the standard of highbrow.

foo_foo_can_do 3y ago
well if you think of all forms of expression as being equal but for their regard by society then yeah, but that's not how anyone seems to live. It's not that simple people think they are sophisticated simply because they are in power, they instead believe there is no such thing as sophistication. you also assume there is one form of expression per "group" and not a variance in brow position across groups. I mean, if you're going to apply this foucauldian logic at least do some legwork to say something new.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  I didn't realise my belief had to be novel in order to be valid. Or is it only when you associate my belief with the boogeyman of Foucault? > you also assume there is one form of expression per "group" I didn't assume that or imply it in any way. I understand that there various linguistic strata and they each have their own substrata. I still stand by the assertions I made above, as while there are inter-group power dynamics at play in the defining of "brow level" there are of course also intra-group power dynamics.
stereolambda 3y ago
Note the scare quotes. I used an imperfect word to suggest a crude mode of communication where we don't care about communicating clearly or on subject, or human aspirations beyond biology and prestige, or emphasizing respect to yourself and to the other person, or maintaining connection to the long term culture and history of thought. That not this equals power is an interesting meme. Powerful people are usually crude (police, army, politicians, business magnates, aristocracy and the like isn't known for being very subtle either). Of course with humanities you can creatively construct almost any reading to the culture and society if you want to "prove" what you want. If you strictly equate cultural practices with social groups that can be dominant or not, there is already some gross simplification going on.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  I saw the scare quotes and was going to mention that in my comment as I was aware you weren't necessarily using the word in a derogatory way. I chose not to as I thought it would be clear enough. Apologies for not being more explicit on my reading of your words. > a crude mode of communication where we don't care about communicating clearly or on subject I didn't read this from it though. That seems somewhat orthogonal to the content of the article? > or emphasizing respect to yourself and to the other person, or maintaining connection to the long term culture and history of thought. This I do actually take issue with though. This is an example of what I meant above. I grew up speaking a "non-standard" English and I can say that I've never felt that using it was reflective of a lack for respect for myself or the people around me. Saying that someone should speak in a more "standard" or "high brow" way that comes unnaturally to them in order to show respect is an example of the power dynamic I'm talking about. I come from Northern Ireland and my speech is heavily inflected. If I go to England and speak with people who have more linguistic dominance then I notice a change in how in received. There is an assumption that I'm less intelligent when I use my Hiberno-English, like saying "they learned me how to write" rather than "they taught me how to write." If the English of my home was dominant then we would see this effect in reverse. Same for wanting to "maintain a connection to long term culture or thought." Those cultures and thoughts win out on the long term because of the power plays. How many languages have died out in the course of colonialism? Do think the speakers of those languages didn't want a connection to the history of thought, or did we just ignore them and forget them because they lacked the power to assert themselves? > Of course with humanities you can creatively construct What does this mean? Are you saying that your assertions are more rooted in hard science than mine? Or the whole field of social linguistics is hogwash? Then why have this conversation at all? > If you strictly equate cultural practices with social groups that can be dominant or not I didn't. > Powerful people are usually crude Is this an oversimplification? Are non powerful people usually not crude? This is the point: the sophistication is not an inherent trait of the language; it's socially constructed and perpetuated through social power dynamics.