Response to Ngugi

When discussing Ngugi's article, I felt like I was the problem rather than the solution in this push for English.  But after a helpful discussion with my group (thanks, guys!), I was able to come to a more comfortable understanding of the situation.
 
The questions raised by Ngugi's article reinforced how important teacher education and awareness is.

To use a personal example that I feel relates to this issue:

In my first job in Korea, I was at an English Village, a mandated 'English Only' environment.  Students were not allowed to speak Korean, and at that time I was unable to understand or speak Korean.  In the activities, the focus was often on minute grammar points that had to be produced completely accurately.  It was oppressive for students as very little true communication occurred.  It was oppressive for teachers as the culture of this environment isolated us from understanding the workings of a Korean workplace and their educational system.  It kept students and teachers divided.  Teachers possessed the knowledge and students were required to perform in a certain way in order to interact with us. 

Since this time, my experience and knowledge of Korean society has increased dramatically.  I have also come to value the importance of Konglish and Korean in the classroom to aid understanding.  While I am still unable to speak Korean to any great degree, I can understand quite a lot of regular classroom questions, vocabulary and body language.  I encourage students to communicate as best they can and that often involves using Konglish, dropped articles or grammatical errors.


I won't follow the English Village way.  I won't put up barriers by demanding that I be addressed only in English or only in grammatically accurate utterances.  I won't admonish students for communicating in the only way they know how.  There is no value in that, it's building walls between me and my students and does little to promote good feelings about English. 

I won't go so far as to compare it to the oppression of Japanese colonialism but it does illustrate a sense of arrogance that exists with English Only education.

Heaven and Hell

 

"It's not where it takes you.  It's what it gets you away from."

I found this print advertisement for a cable sports channel on a website for recognised work within the advertising industry.  It was held up as an exemplary example of a print campaign.

The main character in this campaign is a casually dressed, every-man type and the intended audience is clearly male sports viewers.  The male character is seen rising towards the light/the couch, presumably to watch his favourite sports game.  In doing so, he is also seen escaping the burning darkness/the wife and children.  The wife is depicted as a dishevelled looking woman, holding two screaming infants.  She can be seen looking up at the male figure, beckoning him to return.  The awkward way she is holding the two toddlers implies that they are more than she can handle and keep under control.

The juxtaposition of heaven and hell is obvious.  The male character's family is lurking in the depths of hell, suggesting that his everyday responsibilities are a burden and his only release and sense of enlightenment comes from engaging in the male-dominated activity of watching sports.  This is where peace can be found.  This is where the light is.  This is the closest he can get to godliness.  However, the caption reinforces the idea that it is not watching sports that is the end goal, rather getting away from the family is: time away from your family is equal to heaven.

No regard is given to the female character, forced to look after the children by herself.  The context of the visual imagery and the caption imply that the female character is little more than a nag, responsible for placing these burdens on the male, making it necessary for him to seek escape.  Her demands for attention are what is driving the male away.

The imagery in this advertisement is striking to me, on a couple of different levels.  First of all, the couch, in this top position, surrounded by holy light, seems to me to be saying that in our society, we place pop culture entertainment above all else.  The comfort gained from watching television, movies, and so on beats any comfort that could be gained from interacting with others, even loved ones.  It suggests that pop culture is what is pulling people away from each other, driving a wedge in relationships.  Has our society become so shallow that the pinnacle of all we can hope for is to escape with a couple of hours of mind-numbing television?

The religious connotations are even more bothersome.  The received reading would like to suggest that it is women who drive men away however, I wonder if it is in fact religion that is responsible?  In practice, religions of all kinds are patriarchal, whether directly from scripture or through interpretation and action, and the inherent positioning of men over women is what is driving them apart.  The male’s face is awash in glowing light; he has attained salvation, his existence has been validated by religion, while the female remains unsaved, in the dirty squalor of hell.  I find it ironic that religion advocates so strongly for heterosexual marriage and so strongly against abortion, yet the end result is that this female is trapped in hell, with two children she may not have wanted, in a marriage she had to enter into, with a partner who sees himself as her superior and as such denies her the help that she looks to him for.  The male’s preoccupation with attaining enlightenment keeps him disconnected from his family and the female’s acceptance of religion and its demands is what keeps her subjugated and unsatisfied.  To reappropriate the caption in reference to the female’s situation – religion is not taking her anywhere; it is keeping her away from true freedom in thought and action, in the darkness and away from the light.