A champagne socialist reflects on Western culture and the Universe... and whilst gazing at his navel, he comes up with a lot of useless lint. It is the fruits of this navel-gazing that form the substance of this blog.
or culturally supremacist anyway
Published on August 2, 2005 By Champas Socialist In Politics
There are a lot of harsh things said on JU about people with little money or no job. People often say it’s because they’re lazy or stupid or other such ideas. The poor are poor because they’re stupid and lazy, is the conservatives’ cry. There are probably some cases where this is the case, but as far as I can see it’s far more complicated than this. There are plenty of fat, rich bastards and lazy members of the middle class. And that is why I believe that Bourdieu’s theory about ‘cultural capital’ is a very valid and important theory. I’ve tried to explain this theory before but with little success, but I don’t give up easily. Here is a story that I think demonstrates the theory.

When I was in Noumea, I hung around a lot in the Salty River suburb, which is a very low socio-economic area. My mates were from the island of Wallis and their parents worked at the nickel mine, which is certainly not the work of lazy people. These mates of mine spoke far better French than I do of course. They live in a French-speaking country and speak French at school. Nothing surprising there. But because of their parents they also all spoke Wallisian. When speaking to each other, they swapped between the two languages easily and often. As Wallisian was the language spoken at home, it was effectively their mother tongue. What’s more, some of these people I hung out with were actually from another nearby island, I think called Foutunia. My Wallisian mates couldn’t really speak Foutunien, but the Foutuniens had worked out how to speak Wallisian just from hanging out with their mates. On top of this, they learned the words to a lot of English language songs off the radio.

Now there’s nothing particularly extraordinary about what I’ve told you, but consider this. In Australia, the fact that I am bilingual, that I speak French fairly well is considered very remarkable. There are not many Australians who achieve bilingualism. Here, a lot of people give me a lot of respect for it. What’s more, I’m often asked if I’m going to do anything with my French. What they mean is, am I going to do any work with French, am I going to use it to get any money? It’s a fair enough question. French gives me a lot of opportunities. It’s spoken in a lot of countries and you can do business with it, become a diplomat, French teacher, or even an English teacher in a French-speaking country.

There are many many opportunities for people who speak two languages. Really? No, not entirely true. You must speak the Languages of Power, the Languages of Money. If I spoke Wallisian, what opportunities would it bring me? None. Absolutely nothing, because Wallisian is not a Language with any Power. But it would have been equally difficult for me to learn Wallisian as it was for me to learn French, right?

It’s not that I am any more intelligent or talented for languages than my mates at the Salty River. But I learned a language that our monetary system has decided is important. With the languages of Indonesian tribes, with Wallisian, with Kanak languages, you can get nothing for speaking them. And that’s what cultural capital is. I have it. I have the capital that our culture gives value to. I know what you have to know to have success in our culture, whereas my mates down at the Salty River know more than I do (they speak their second language, French, far better than I do), but their mother tongue has no value in a capitalist system. So even though they know more things than I do, they don’t know the things you have to know to have success in a capitalist culture.

I’m not saying this to show that capitalism is evil, but just to show you how the system works, and even discriminates. All systems discriminate in some way, dependant on what cultural capital they value. Cultures give value to certain things, but they don’t give value to other things that are equally difficult to learn. And that’s why I argue it is far more complicated than to say that poor people are lazy and stupid.

In effect, you could even argue that the reason French has more value is because there are so many peoples who have put in the effort to learn French, whereas the French have been too lazy to learn Kanaky languages for example. Really, it’s us, English-speakers who are the laziest, because we put in virtually no effort to become bilingual, even when we arrive in a country to colonise it where there are always tribes that speak the land’s native tongues, like Australia. It’s us who are still too lazy to learn Aboriginal languages, which are the native tongues of Australia. Meanwhile, the majority of Aborigines have to become bilingual with English just to survive, forget about getting rich.

Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Aug 02, 2005

My mates were from the island of Wallis and their parents worked at the nickel mine, which

You see if they were smarter, they would work in the Dime or Quarter mines.

Now that the bad pun is over with, I'll take your or, but not your original statement.  I wont say supremist, but superior.  And it really has nothing to do with their intelligence or lot in life.  It has to do with creating an industry.  If they could create an industry that people wanted or needed, and refused to learn the language of their customers, then their customers would have to learn theirs.  It is that simple.  I dare say that they have to learn a second language because they do not have a resource that is invaluable enough for them to set the terms.

I would not classify England higher than France on the cultural scale (for the sake of this argument) and indeed, many Wealthy French never learn English.  Just as Many wealthy Spanish do not.  They have no need to for they can become wealthy without having to because they have a product that others are willing to learn their language in order to trade (or at least hire a bilingual person to do the negotiations).

So, while their cultural may have its merits, they have done nothing to export it, as the English and Spanish have done (by far the 2 most wide spread).  That is not racism, it is opportunism.  And you cant say that just because someone wants to get ahead, they are somehow a racists, or cultural supremist.  Just that they did what they had to to make their lot in life easier.

You can be a genius, and still be poor.  I have known some.  INtelligence is not a guarantee of success.

on Aug 02, 2005
...and it's a load because there are capitalist societies in the world stuffed with multi-lingual people. Australia may be capitalist, but that doesn't mean capitalism is defined by Australia.

In most nations neo-socialism is racist. Build them government project ghettos and feed the 'unfortunate' with food stamps. Make sure you give them healthcare, since it is a foregone conclusion that they won't be able to afford it. Capitalism grants everyone the opportunity to better themselves. Socialism assumes the worst and would prefer everyone live in mediocrity than risk anyone failing.

I'd suggest you look at capitalist societies around the world and rethink your premise. Don't blame capitalism for Australia's treatment of its aboriginal peoples. They weren't slaughtered because of their language, any more than native americans were. As a lily-white protestant, if I had moved to apartheid-ruled South Africa without learning the language, I hardly think it would have been 'racism' or capitalism keeping me down, it would be my own ignorance.

Look at the inherant racism in many socialist systems, past and present, too. It isn't about capitalism, its about hate and racial bias, which you find in any economic system.
on Aug 02, 2005
It's kind of confounding how you can even come to the conclusion that private ownership of land and the means of production is racist. Twisted versions wherin certain races or classes are barred from the process, sure, but pure capitalism means opportunity for anyone, since the power to produce is in the hands of the individual.

If Mexicans come to America and have a hard time breaking into the economic system because they can't communicate, you can't for a minute call it racist. If someone comes to my business speaking Romanian, it isn't racist that I don't understand them. Even in a socialist nation, to take time away from good proletariat work to study a language you won't ever use is just as tertiary.

I find it ironic that French is used in the argument, considering they tend to embrace a perverted sense of socialism, and yet do their best to purge their society of foriegn languages and cultures that supposedly corrupt their way of life.
on Aug 02, 2005
I mean, can you possibly imagine the uproar if an American city tried to pass a law requiring English on all advertising and that it should be twice as big as any other included language? To some that is supposedly "Protecting culture".

This isn't about capitalism, this is about hate. Racism in a capitalist society works counter to the process. For me to exclude people from the economy just means less people spending and selling. Capitalism thrives on MORE people spending and selling.

If there is a system anywhere that is more HARMED by racism than capitalism, I don't know what it is. Totally bogus point, imho.
on Aug 02, 2005
MENSA is filled with life failures, you can be super smart and still fail.
on Aug 02, 2005

That was not the point I was trying to make. The point was that English has long been known as "the universal language." Where did I say anything about them (the British) being higher on the cultural scale?

I was responding to the article, not to you.

on Aug 02, 2005

I find it ironic that French is used in the argument, considering they tend to embrace a perverted sense of socialism, and yet do their best to purge their society of foriegn languages and cultures that supposedly corrupt their way of life.

I think French was used as that was his experience.  I think a better counter Example is Spanish, as virtually an entire continent speaks it and does not rely on English to do Business internally.

on Aug 02, 2005

I think a more valid title to your blog would be "Life Isn't Fair".  That is really what it boils down to isn't it?  Sure, Wallisian might be as difficult to learn as any other language but the reality is, how many people even know such a language exists?  Life is about numbers.  Majority rules.  Majority of opinion, majority of belief, majority of money.  It might not feel fair to the minority but that is life.

I think a lot of the JU "harsh things" you refer to are said by Americans about Americans.  Most Americans, and I stress "most" because there are always exceptions, are in the financial situations they are in by life choices.  There are many opportunities here for people to rise above poor beginnings.  Some people have it a lot harder than others and have more negative influences but opportunities are still there.

You say there are plenty of lazy members of the middle class.  I say that would be the exception here in America.  People in the middle to upper class consist mostly of double income households and I guarantee neither of the members are lazy.  Most I know worked like crazy through high school, invested in college, earned degrees and work every day toward advancing in their careers.  I wouldn't call that lazy.

on Aug 02, 2005
Strategic planning != racism
on Aug 02, 2005
You crack me up LW!
on Aug 02, 2005
I have thought this one over, and find the ideal not quite right. Do we did to really know two languages or more. Yes and no.

First "NO": What help would it do if some farmer in middle America, or a farmer on the Russian steps knew two languages? It wouldn't help in any way. The average everyday worker any where on this planet really has no use for two languages.

That being said, now for the "YES"; If you are going to work in the tourist industry it is a good thing to know at least your own language along with at least one other, and if possible two.

Captains of industry do not need to know anymore than the language of their country; reason being they can employe numerous individuals that speak different languages. Changes are if they deal with different foreign countries they have lawyers on there staffs which can speak just about any language that may be required for their business.

Will in college I learned to speak two other languages; German, and French. That was forty years ago, thus at this point in my life I have only used German so to study the transcript of the WWII writings and trail transcripts of some of the different situations that took place during that time. However, I have not used the German or French for over twenty years, hence, I couldn't wouldn't even be able to understand let alone speak either language today.

It really isn't necessary for the average individual to have to learn to speak another language, even if it is the language of a country that they colonizied or conquered.

Lee
on Aug 02, 2005

This article makes very little sense to me.

The word racism is thrown around way too..liberally.

There's nothing racist about not knowing some language.

My reaction  - BOO HOO. Life ain't fair.  People have to adapt to the realities of the world in order to be success. 

on Aug 03, 2005
little_whip - not much different I assure than living in Idaho. 78% of the farm workers here are as you indicated from the area south of the border.

Lee
on Aug 03, 2005
This article makes very little sense to me.

The word racism is thrown around way too..liberally.

There's nothing racist about not knowing some language.


Um... he said racism once - in the title, although he does use discriminate a little bit as well. Is that too much? My guess is it was just a way of grabbing attention, because the focus of the article - at least for me - seemed to be the argument that you can't call the poor stupid or lazy because it's more complicated than that.

The languages thing is merely an explanation of why this is so - their poverty is as much a result of cultural realities as their own tendencies towards laziness (real or otherwise).

Of course I could be wrong...

Anyway, I liked the article. Bourdieu sounds like an interesting thinker. I'm definitely going to look up his work if I ever get the chance.
on Aug 04, 2005
cacto, exactly. The title is to get traffic. But as usual (as I intimated with my 100th article), the JU Right just wanna get upset about the title.

JillUser comes next closest to dealing with the issue. Yes, "Life Isn't Fair" was sort of the point. But this point applies to the Americans talking about Americans too. Really the point I made applies to every culture. Every culture values certain skills and gives no value to certain other skills. Bourdieu's point is that capitalism is not a meritocracy any more than any other system. In any society you have to acquire certain skills and knowledge if you want to succeed. If your talents don't happen to fit in with the dominant culture's idea of what skills are valuable, then you will not succeed. TAmerica's poor are not poor just because of life choices. New Caledonia/Kanaky's poor are not poor because of life choices. New Caledonia has rich people. They are the people who have the specific skills valued by their capitalist system, or alternatively, those valued by the tribal system, depending on where they live.

As far as using the French as an example: a portion of the French population may talk Left, but the Governments are as Right wing as America or Australia.

LW, I never said anyone did have to learn them all. I'm just pointing out how the system works against them in a way that it works for me. I haven't done any more work than they have, but the work I did is the work valued by society.

And Draginol, I think I made it pretty clear that I wasn't complaining about life being unfair, I was simply pointing it out. I did this because I think the Right should get their hands off it and stop whinging about lazy poor people, when the problem is quite clearly more complex than that. If you couldn't understand that, but everyone else could, is that my fault? You were the one who asked for more fleshed out arguments from the Left. For the first time I don't completely dumb down my writing to a level of high school and this is what I get!

BakerStreet, how you do love to jump to conclusions way beyond the scope of the article. I never brought up anything about the slaughter of the Aboriginal peoples. I was talking about their current plight. Stop living in the past mate! As for socialism, I already made that point, thanks for reiterating.

Lee, nicely made point, but slightly side tracked. Some people succeed using other skills, sure. But the point is that there are people in society who succeed even though they have only worked as hard as my Wallisian buddies. Is that fair that they should receive unequal success for equal work and skill? No. I'm not saying change the system, I'm just saying it isn't fair and we should take that into account before we bullshit on about why the poor are poor and what to do about it.
3 Pages1 2 3