Challenging notions of identity. Are we defined independently or are we dependent upon definition?

In my original equity analysis I examined the idea of equity in reference to language. I reflected on equity or inequity rather, as to being more of a social conflict in our current generation than a political one. I referenced Gloria Anzaldua’s article “How to Tame a Wild Tongue” and James Baldwin’s “If Black English Isn’t a Language” as well as a couple of policy statements from The Conference on College Composition and Communication and The Association of Writer’s and Writing Programs. The articles both spoke from separate perspective on the issues of language and identity.

The stance I took in my original synopsis was that it is inequitable to deny languages from being independent of the common main languages. More specifically I concluded it was inequitable the way we relegate individuals here in the United States, to Standard English. I went on to refer to this as a form of assimilation to a common tongue, which restructures entire societies. I spoke of how James Baldwin and Gloria Anzaldua made great points on how closely language is tied to identity. I then wrote that I believe that it reduces culture and denies said individuals a sense of identity who are forced to learn Standard English.

In class I felt that we definitely touched on how language is essential to individual identity but I felt we went a lot further than that. After we unpacked Patrick Hartwell’s “Grammar, Grammars and the teaching of Grammars”, the class discussion took a new direction that I thought was relevant and added more to my original synopsis in a facet that I did not explore. We spoke about how grammar is really a pluralistic concept and is independently defined. We spoke about how in Hartwell’s article when he speaks of the first of his “five meanings of grammar” on page 211 and 212 of Cross-Talk, that there is a grammar in our heads. He recalls an exercise given to his students on page 212 in which the students do not know a specific grammar rule yet they know how to use it if they are a “native speaker” of English.

He then uses this idea to make the statement that grammar can be a preconceived concept and notion that is learned but not understood. The fact that he references it to “native speakers” shows that grammar is different among backgrounds, yet preconceived. This then turned our class discussion to the idea that much like language, grammar is very much tied to identity. Therefore for my original argument to state that it is inequitable to deny a person of their independent language as being inequitable on account of simultaneously denying them identity; then is applicable to the concept of grammar.

To deny a person of an independent grammar instead of a set of standard grammatical values would also be to deny them a sense of identity. At first, this seemed to further my previous argument but then eventually challenged it as we reached the last portion of our discussion in class. At the end of class we spoke of whether or not identity was independently defined or rather it was defined by association or assigned. This was in context to our class discussion on Gloria Anzaldua’s “How to Tame a Wild Tongue”. We spoke of Anzaldua’s seemingly uncertain sense of identity. In her story it seems everybody in her life from all of the different cultures that she shares were trying to define her differently from one another. This brought up the question of, do we possibly all form our own identity independently so that we don’t need to identify with a specific culture? We may relate to cultures but when you aren’t one hundred percent living in that culture, can you really identify one hundred percent or can you simply just relate?

This idea definitely challenged the focal point of my original synopsis of assumed identity. If identity is independently defined then in reference to language and grammar, why not have a unified language and grammar? If you can preserve your culture and identity independently, then why challenge the previously referred to socially constructed confines of language and grammar. In the end, I still haven’t made up my mind on where I stand on the tissue, although I still lean more towards my original synopsis. The class discussion however, still challenged my original opinion.