Citation

McGloin C. Rev. Educ. Pedagog. Cult. Stud. 2014; 36(2): 156-167.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/10714413.2014.898542

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In a previous article discussing the politics of language in Australian Indigenous Studies teaching and learning contexts, the author and her colleague stated their objective in writing that article was to ''instill'' a sense of the importance of the political nature of language to their student body (McGloin and Carlson 2013). They wanted to engage students in the idea that language, as a conduit for describing the world, is not a neutral channel for its portrayal or depiction; rather, that it is a political device that is often a contributing force to racism and the perpetuation of colonial violence. While reviews of the article were favorable to, and enthusiastic about its aims and content, and some suggestions for refinement helpful, one of the reviewer's comments presented a quandary: the authors were advised to replace the word "instill" (as in the above context) with "develop," a term considered ''less invasive.'' In stating that their aim was to develop a sense of the importance of language, the authors were advised, their article would better ''recognise the varying trajectories of student learning.'' After much consideration, they declined this suggestion contending that the word "instill" fit the aims of the article in that were introducing a practice that would inculcate the importance of language in Indigenous contexts. Their thoughts were that such a practice went beyond a gradual developmental process. Indeed, instilling the importance of language by using concrete examples of its application, and its effects, in their view, should be the starting point of a critical pedagogical practice in anticolonial studies. The term "develop" suggested less immediacy than they wanted to convey about what they thought a serious issue for their students, their discipline, and those interested in work that examines language use for the purpose of disclosing its significatory potential and its capacity for misrepresentation. So although grateful for suggestions for improvement, the irony of substituting a ''less invasive'' term was not lost on them and has inspired this writer to return to the terrain with the aim of further understanding the capacity of language to seamlessly naturalize, and to level and conflate difference as much as to mark otherness. The author invokes the anecdote of the review process not in arrogance or disrespect but to illustrate the way in which language is often euphemized for the purpose of palatability or social convention. In this article, she wants to emphasize the importance of language, in all its contexts, following Bakhtin (1992), to tease out those ''varying degrees of otherness or varying degrees of 'our own-ness''' in what is spoken and what is heard, what is understood and misunderstood (89). The article builds on previous work by further complicating the politics of language in contexts of sociocultural difference in order to draw attention to its usage and to make visible that which is hidden, unspeakable, offensive, or deemed unpalatable, by examining closely the use of euphemism as it shapes ''public pedagogy'' and cultural politics in broader discursive terrains. The focus is on what cannot be said, what is left out of the telling of violent histories, and how this affects both the subjects under erasure and those doing the erasing. The author asks: Why events, histories, and practices that are too difficult, too political, or too emotionally loaded to be uttered "toned down"? and How does the sanitizing of historical events affect those doing the narrating as well as those who are subjects of narrative? She concludes with some insight into the reason for students' use of euphemism in Indigenous studies and argues for a praxis whereby effective strategies for addressing euphemism might be developed through sustained dialogue about the politics of language.

Language: en