How Can Language Empower or Disempower People?

September 11, 2013 · by · in

The two texts analysed Clash of Communicative Strategies in Australia (Text A)  and Shakespeare in the Bush (Text B) show how language can empower as well as disempower different cultures through cultural bias, issues with interpretation and cultural norms.  The text Clash of Communicative Strategies in Australia explains the differences in the Aboriginal culture that cause communication problems when talking English to white Australians. On the other hand, Shakespeare in the Bush tells of a story of a anthropologist’s trouble in conveying the interpretation of Hamlet to a native African tribe in Tiv, West Africa.

The idea of cultural bias is highlighted in both texts, and shows how cultural bias is used to disempower different cultures. In Text B, the anthropologist carries a sense of cultural bias when studying the native tribe in Kenya, as she tries to convince the tribe that her interpretation of Hamlet is more correct than the Tribesmen’s interpretation. She believes this on the basis of cultural bias, that her western interpretation is superior to other cultures in the world. Within the text, the anthropologists constantly argues with the Tribesmen’s interpretation of certain events in Hamlet as she believes that her interpretation is a more factual and correct one, because of her western background. In this case, due to cultural bias, the anthropologist is distempering the Tribesmen by refuting their opinions as incorrect ones.

Similarly, in Text A, Aboriginals are forced to switch communication styles when communicating with white Australians, because of cultural bias. This is because Standard Australian English is held in a higher regard than Aboriginal English on the basis that it is more superior. This means that Aboriginals are forced to cope with learning to switch dialects when speaking in legal and medical situations, as the Standard Australian English is perceived as better than Aboriginal English, hence the use in these environments. Similar to the first case, Aboriginals as disempowered as it is more difficult for them to go to court and go to hospital, since their dialect is not concerned significant compared to Standard Australian English.

Interpretation issues are also discussed in both texts, and also show how different interpretations can lead to disempowerment of certain people. To begin with, Text A shows how Aboriginals interpret questions differently to the ordinary Australian. Within the Aboriginal culture, the concept of numbers is not emphasised as much as in Western societies, and as of such, Aboriginals will not understand the difference between numbers such as 7 and 8. When asked a question about number of people or things, Aboriginals will not be able to interpret this question clearly as they have no notion with the difference of numbers. This can cause problems in a courtroom situation for example, severely diminishing the dependability of a Aboriginal persons account and witness.

Likewise, in text B, the different interpretations of Hamlet by the tribesmen also led to disempowerment. As the interpretations of certain story elements of Hamlet by the Tribesmen was different to that of the anthropologist, she views them in a negative light as well as questioning their views. For example, the tribesmen view the actions of two characters, Claudius and Gertrude, in a positive light while the anthropologist on the other hand sees this new interpretation as quite absurd, and contradictory to the general interpretation of the characters actions. As their interpretations differ, the anthropologist views the tribesmen negatively, calling them “pagans with no belief in individual afterlife”, while disempowering them by refuting their interpretations wholeheartedly, as she does within text B.

However, these two texts do show how language can empower certain groups as well, through the use of cultural norms. In Text A for example, the way Aboriginals  communicate in a non-direct speech reflects the society they live in. The cultural norms of the Aboriginals dictate upon maintaining social relations and protecting privacy, which leads to them talking in a non-direct way in order to fulfil these norms.  As of such, people whom are a part of this Aboriginal culture use this communication method to empower themselves, as  it also them to express themselves uniquely and in a way that empowers their Aboriginal heritage.

Furthermore, in Text B, the way the Tribesmen interpret Hamlet is also an example of how cultural norms can be used to empower certain groups. In this case, the Tribesmen’s interpretation of Hamlet was again a reflection of how their society functions, and as a result was vastly different to the western interpretation by the anthropologist. For example, the idea that a chief only has one wife is strange for the tribesmen because in their culture, chiefs will have many wives instead of only one wife. As they interpret Hamlet differently to other cultures, this allows the tribesmen to convey certain values and ideas of their culture through their interpretations they have. This leads to empowerment, as they are able to maintain their culture through the way in which they perceive information.

Overall, the concepts of cultural norms, issues with interpretation and cultural bias show how language can be used to disempower as well as empower certain groups. Through cultural norms, certain groups can use language express their culture’s values and norms. Issues with interpretation can cause problems to arise for Aboriginals through cross-cultural relations and cause lead to African tribes in ‘incorrectly’ interpreting a play. Cultural bias can show how certain people believe that their form of language is superior to other forms of the language, seen in the case of Standard Australian English as well as with the interpretation of the western anthropologist.