I knew that I wasn’t going to like Stanley Fish’s article the second he praised Catholic schools. It told me that his arguments were going to be just like most of these schools in style; outdated and full of arrogance. As I read, I felt that my early analysis was pretty accurate.
One of the quotes that really stuck out to me was when he said “You’re not going to be able to change the world if you are not equipped with the tools that speak to its present condition. You don’t strike a blow against a power structure by making yourself vulnerable to its prejudices.” One of the first things that came to my mind when I read that was Sojourner Truth’s speech entitles “Ain’t I a Woman”:
“That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?”
I really just love this speech and find it to be one of the most powerful speeches against the intersection of sexism and racism. Yet Sojourner doesn’t use “correct” English. She says “ain’t” repeatedly. However this speech was so popular that people today still know it, because it speaks the truth. Does a grammatical error take away from a logical argument? If you are Fish, it just might.
Can you think of any other examples of ways that people have used “incorrect” English to a political end?
I also felt a little iffy when he mentioned Catholic schools. It seemed strange to point out Catholic schools in particular, rather than all private or religious private schools. But adding religion, especially such a particular one (and I say this as a Catholic) seems to carry a strange bit of favoritism to it. Though I myself attended a public school, many students from local private schools would transfer once they reached high school age, and there didn’t seem to be substantial differences in their performance based on whether or not their previous school was Catholic. Knowing everyone else’s business is somewhat of a benefit in a small school.
Going further, however, all private schools enjoy the obvious privileges. Better funding, since they charge tuition and often receive some government benefits (Ohio’s governor has been criticized pretty harshly for perhaps giving them too many benefits). Also, since they’re often competitive and costly, they have fewer students to manage, and more teachers per student. Additionally, students attending through scholarship programs have already been acknowledged through their acceptance, and students who can afford to go often belong to upper class families where their parents have greater resources for them to access. There are an incredible amount of differences here, but I think the biggest issue is simply how Fish can honestly try to compare private and public schooling without fully acknowledging all of the advantages they have.
To address your other issue, I think this ‘incorrect English’ has been abused a lot in the past. As in, people appropriating this language in order to appeal to a certain demographic. My first thought was Hillary Clinton and accusations of her changing her speech patterns when visiting different regions. A different approach than Sojourner, but definitely a testament to the strength it has.
I totally agree with the person who asked the question–I think that we can accomplish so much through using “nonstandard” English. The first thing I thought of was a piece by Audre Lorde called “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House,” which is actually one of my favorite pieces of writing and it’s at the intersection of activist/academic. It pretty much argues directly against Fish. I think that Lorde would argue that in this case, the “master’s tools” would be standard English and the “master’s house” would be the oppressive system that we currently live in. Although this piece is not directly written in nonstandard English like the Young piece was, Lorde does make a lot of important political moves through her poetry (a form of nonstandard English) in combination with her more academic writing. I think that she is a great example of someone who both embraces the nonstandard style but also seeks to educate through a more standardized approach.