User:Lindseygorry/sandbox

Draft:

Raciolinguistics Definition

Raciolinguistics is a discipline that examines how language is used to construct race and how ideas of race influence language. It is related to sociolinguistics and linguistic anthropology, but focuses on race and its relation to language. A central concern of raciolinguistics is to understand the complex meanings and implications of speech coming from a racialized subject. It is studied in America due to its diversity and hyper-racial culture. Raciolinguistics explores the close relationships between race, racism and language and how these processes impact people's lives across domains like politics and education.

Although sociolinguists and linguistic anthropologists have studied language, race, and culture, raciolinguistics is a relatively new focus for scholars trying to theorize race throughout language studies. Though it focuses on race and language, raciolinguists aim to incorporate Intersectionality in their theorizing and recognize intersections of identity influence lived experiences of race.

Languaging Race

When looking at race as a social construct rather than as biological in definition, language is influential in constructing social definitions of race. Language is a cultural tool for distinguishing the self from others. Language has been used to define racial groups, and it can be used by the individual to construct his/her identity and membership within a group.

The social conceptions of race are culturally malleable, and language can be used by an individual as a means of performing the membership of multiple racial groups. Racial identity can shift throughout different contexts and environments (cite), and language can be a tool to achieve this (See Barack Obama and Raciolinguistics). It has been argued that language can be a means of achieving transracialization, in which society moves beyond racial categorization (but does not claim to ignore race as in a "Post-racial" society). The case of Rachel Dolezal is an example in which raciolinguists have studied the concept of transracialization and its relation to language. Sami Alim argues that language and transracialism can be used to transform the oppressive nature of race.

Racing Language

Another focus of raciolinguistics is the use of race theory to understand how sociolinguistic variation relates to social and political processes. Being a member of a racial group may require the use of certain ethnolect s or ethnolin guistic repertoires, influencing the language used among a racial group and the individual identifying with the group. This area explores the systematic reasons language use differs between racial groups.

Barack Obama and Raciolinguistics

The 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama is an interesting case study for raciolinguists. Some scholars consider that, on his campaign trail, Obama used different language registers to overcome racial divisions among the electorate. As a public figure and racialized individual, Obama's language was under scrutiny by the public. Raciolinguists are interested in both Obama use and modification of language dialects and the metalinguistic discourse surrounding it: the language of the public concerning Obama's language. Controversial discourse surrounded Obama's language use, with Ralph Nader claiming Obama "talked white" and Harry Reid stating that he spoke with "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one". The cultural conception of a "negro dialect" or "talking white", and how this is applied to identity by the self and others are areas of interest to raciolinguists.

Raciolinguistics in Education

Through the standardization of appropriate language for American schooling, raciolinguists have theorized that these constructs of appropriateness create different meaning and experiences for racialized students. "Appropriate" language is defined by the language of the dominant culture, and English language learners are tracked and stigmatized even after their language becomes "appropriate".

Plan for Raciolinguistics article:

First I am going to look into the theoretical history of raciolinguistics as an idea to find important figures and events in raciolinguistics. This will help me because I have not studied linguistics much, although I do have some background in sociological symbolic-interactional theories having to do with language. Racioinguistics is a stub from sociolinguistics from which I should be able to pull important ideas. I think it would be good to research non-white linguists and sociologists for their work and ideas on this topic. The authors of this article first and foremost do not come consensus about what identity politics are. They are described as "political views", "a phenomenon", a set of "fundamental practices", "political correctness" and so on. For a person trying to learn the basics of identity politics, it is extremely confusing. This issue occurs and is argued due to many disagreements about what is and is not biased. Some sections are written with a tone that indicates the author's skepticism about the importance of identity politics. Other times, there is disagreement on what constitutes a marginalized or oppressed group. The authors do not agree, some taking offense, to the idea that the dominant culture in America is white, heteronormative, and patriarchal. In order for this article to be informative for all readers, it may be useful to leave the definition as broad as possible, such as: Identity politics are political views constructed through identification with social groups because of shared experiences. Social groups lobby for political goals that are of importance to their in-group to put identity politics into action. Rather than discuss what constitutes a social group or why a social group would use identity politics, the definition may remain clear if it sticks to the topic of what constitutes identity politics for any social group. The definition section of the article is clear for the most part, but it is not agreed upon in the history section where others try to redefine identity politics.

Although leaving the definition unspecific may create consensus among users, it is important to discuss the groups of people who brought about identity political organization. The most incoherent part of the article is the history section, briefly mentioning marxism, the Combahee RIver Collective, and other historical moments but does not clearly discuss the creation of group-identity political thought and action. This section could be improved with a conscientious use of historical sources. For example, the statement "Identity politics is a phenomenon that arose first at the radical margins of liberal democratic societies in which human rights are recognized, and the term is not usually used to refer to dissident movements within single-party or authoritarian states" could be an opinion since it is not explained with historical information.The historical section would also be clearer if it was written in chronological order, starting with thoroughly explaining social theory such as marxism's contribution of class-consciousness, rather than just mentioning it. This would also help explain terms used throughout, for example "consciousness raising" is not explained and used in the beginning of the history section.

The most well-written part of the article in my opinion is the information on intersectionality. It provides differing and dissenting perspectives of identity politics, not being biased in either direction. Any bias is acceptable due to the citing of Kimberle Crenshew; it is a historical pattern of thought rather than an individuals. It provides context and analysis of identity politics. If the rest of the article used this as a model for citing and clarity (most of this article could use editing), it would provide readers with balanced, contextual information they could understand.