Language and Power

The correlation between language, power, and resistance can be illustrated with individual threads that are closely woven into a tight mesh. Ever since the creation of language, people have attached certain perceptions to the languages spoken. 

Recently I had the opportunity to read a text written by the feminist and social activist, bell hooks titles 'The Language of Power'. In the text, she delves into the idea of – what she labels – “the oppressors” language or the concept of language as a means of imposing power and dominance. In this case, she relates her interpretation with the black African population that were brought to America to serve as slaves. However, she also emphasized the way the Africans were able to claim and adopt the English language in a form of resistance and reasserting dominance in a new context.

One quote - which I felt significant - embodied this concept claiming “For in the incorrect usage of words, in the incorrect placement of words, was a spirit of rebellion that claimed language as a site of resistance. Using English in a way that ruptured standard usage and meaning, so that white folks could often not understand black speech, made English into more than the oppressor’s language. This beckoned me to explore other texts in which this theory was portrayed in different contexts.

One such text was a particular clip in the movie “Snatch”. In one scene, Tommy, a standard white British man speaking in a standard – closer to a prestige – dialect, is looking to purchase a caravan from a “Pikey” or a traveler speaking in a heavy Belfast accent. The Pikeys were usually regarded in a condescending manner amongst the white middle and upper class communities, which is clearly communicated in the movie. At some points during the conversation between the two characters, Tommy loses track of what Mickey – the Pikey – was saying, and would also have trouble understanding him. This is particularly asserted when Mickey used the word “dags” instead of “dogs” and leaves Tommy to figure the word out himself. The fact that Mickey refuses to simplify his dialect and make it more accessible to Tommy’s understanding shows how by altering the pronunciation and incorrect usage of words and phrases, he is able to assert dominance over the man and demonstrate resistance and rebellion. It is especially interesting to note that even though his attitude towards Tommy is not downright or distinctly aggressive, rude or disapproving, his use of language can carry the same tones.

This occurrence directly echoes hooks’ theory stated above and demonstrates its practice in contexts other than that just of the African Americans, thus supporting the idea of how language can be used as a form of resistance.