"this is the oppressor's language yet I need it to talk to you"
What am I doing writing in English? It is not my heritage. And why do so many of you understand this English that I am writing? Most of you shouldn't. What business does a Chinese have speaking English, the language of oppression?
When we consider subaltern people, or the oppressed, we often picture images of slavery and squalor, far removed from ourselves. And yet, at least for myself personally, I have discovered that I am dependent on the language of the colonizer to express myself. My native languages, while strong enough to converse in, are not necessarily the languages I express myself in. English is my academic language, and the one in which people take me seriously. By learning and speaking regularly in English, are we then oppressing ourselves? The definition of subaltern features the word 'colonized', and I don't think many of us are able to identify with this word at this point in our lives. We/our families made the choice to speak English, believing it to be the best choice for ourselves. In this way we forsake the importance that some native tongues have in our lives, because speaking English 'makes sense', a successful Hegemony.
It is obvious, then, that English is (still) the colonizing language that has continued to oppress us. Our languages are dying, and yet we are not fighting back. I believe this is because English offers a (false?) sense of security. Just like it's elasticity allows the colonizers to make English stronger, it also allows the colonized a chance to create their own version of English. Like how AAVE was a mixture of English and African dialects, different cultures have formed their own Hybrid languages, which often take the structure of code-switching, combining two languages. There are countless examples of this (Singlish, Konglish...) and they've all been created for the purpose of filling language gaps, or to communicate more effectively.
Earlier this year we discussed the links between language and culture, and how the two follow an egg-and-chicken pattern. Which came first? The two are inextricably linked, so the creation of new languages is undoubtedly due to a change in culture. Our native tongue may be rendered useless because of English, so the hybrid rises to take its place. Does this, however, diminish the authenticity of our identities? A large group of people speaking one language is definitely more powerful than a large group of people speaking 20 languages (example: AAVE & slaves). By all speaking the 'language of the oppressors', aren't we thus empowering ourselves? The Linguists stated that losing a language is "losing a way of seeing the world". As one language dies, however, a new (hybrid?) one is born, taking its place more effectively. With it it brings endless avenues of vocabulary, sentence structure and new ways of seeing the world that could be explored.
In conclusion, bell hook's text has shifted the way I view my place in language, as I realized that I am one of the oppressed. But it seems like the oppressor's language has become a part of my culture, instead of my being opposed to it. English (the stronger language) and my native languages (the weaker ones) have combined to form a new identity. The prevalence of this happening throughout history reflects the power of any language, whatever it may be, in its determination to create itself despite all odds. Does our language choice then really matter anyway?
