Lam
- Why does Lam feel that it is problematic, when engaging discourses, to focus on binary oppositions? And, do you feel that her concern is warranted?
- What does Lam mean by “transnational social fields (pp.83 of source text)” and how are they potentially counter-hegemonic (according to Lam)? Please explain.
- According to Lam, the development of intercultural voices and perspectives are vitally important for youth, especially immigrant youth. According to Lam, what do these two terms denote; and, do you agree with her regarding their intrinsic significance?
Lam feels that it is problematic in discourses to focus on binary oppositions (completely identifying with one group while denying any identification with the opposing group), because many people pertain to more than one social category or cultural group that could be in conflict with one other, calling for careful negotiation between numerous discourse practices. I feel that her concern is warranted. People may identify themselves to be related to more than one group, even groups that seem to conflict with each other. People can have bits from both sides and have more than one social network or identity. I feel a connection to both my Korean culture and American culture. When people ask me which nation I feel more bound to, I can't answer them, because I have, in my heart, in many ways, thought that I am living in both nations at the same time.
ReplyDeleteBy transnational social fields, Lam means social networks and identities that transcend the totalizing concept of nationhood and going back and forth between various cultural and sociopolitical arenas in more than one country. Transnational social fields are potentially counter-hegemonic according to Lam, because transmigrants can use their multiple subject positions to subvert the social categories imposed on them by any one system. A transmigrant spot and fill the needs of one country by obtaining the necessary resources another country has plenty of, and gain higher social standing in both countries by acting as a go-between.
There is a dialectical relationship between discourse and social structure. In other words, people speak differently with their family members than they do with friends, educators, coworkers, employers,ect. There is a sense of mastery, which comes along with primary and secondary discourses ( as we read he early James Gee readings), in which ones agency is strengthened when one can master the utilization of a discourse to their advantage. The relationship of discourse is tied to affiliations with groups of people and institutions. "Groups" are formed through commonality of identity. In other words, the thicker one identifies with a person/group/enviornment/country (ect), the stronger their adoption of discourse will be. This further tied into one's native culture, one's adopted culture, one's social setting (work, school, neighborhood).
ReplyDeleteThe point here is that the discourse(s), which one masters, are almost endless. Yes, there are more dominate discourses than others-- or at least discourses which are used more frequently.
The problematic paradigm, in considering a concept such as "binary opposition," lies in the simple assumption this theory considers there are only two discourses: one's aboriginal country, and that of their newer adopted country.
As explained above, there are endless amounts of discourses within a culture. Furthermore, when considering immigrants, there are a series of even more sub-discourses,if you will, within these cultures. Thirdly, in terms of immigrants, they are a subculture. This subculture takes on a new identity, which further develops yet another discourse ( both internally within, and externally representing this identity).
Case in point: Lam feels that it is problematic, when engaging discourses, to focus on binary oppositions because there are more than two discourses within ones culture, especially for transnational actors.
There is a dialectical relationship between discourse and social structure. In other words, people speak differently with their family members than they do with friends, educators, coworkers, employers,ect. There is a sense of mastery, which comes along with primary and secondary discourses ( as we read he early James Gee readings), in which ones agency is strengthened when one can master the utilization of a discourse to their advantage. The relationship of discourse is tied to affiliations with groups of people and institutions. "Groups" are formed through commonality of identity. In other words, the thicker one identifies with a person/group/enviornment/country (ect), the stronger their adoption of discourse will be. This further tied into one's native culture, one's adopted culture, one's social setting (work, school, neighborhood).
ReplyDeleteThe point here is that the discourse(s), which one masters, are almost endless. Yes, there are more dominate discourses than others-- or at least discourses which are used more frequently.
The problematic paradigm, in considering a concept such as "binary opposition," lies in the simple assumption this theory considers there are only two discourses: one's aboriginal country, and that of their newer adopted country.
As explained above, there are endless amounts of discourses within a culture. Furthermore, when considering immigrants, there are a series of even more sub-discourses,if you will, within these cultures. Thirdly, in terms of immigrants, they are a subculture. This subculture takes on a new identity, which further develops yet another discourse ( both internally within, and externally representing this identity).
Case in point: Lam feels that it is problematic, when engaging discourses, to focus on binary oppositions because there are more than two discourses within ones culture, especially for transnational actors.
Lam feels that it is problematic in discourse to focus on binary oppositions because many of people, including ourselves, are in one or more social group or cultural surroundings that could conflict with one another, and that needs careful steps for the numerous discourses practices. It is warranted. We all belong to different groups and we carefully have to juggle around the rules or boundaries that other groups carry. We all speak differently when we are around different people; as for myself I know I would never talk to my coach the way I talk to my teammates. But there are beneficial elements in the way we speak to both parties. Myself being from England I have experienced both English culture and American culture. They are similar in many ways but also have conflicting paths. Which one do I choose? Some groups can be considered more important that others but the opportunity to experience more than one culture can only help me in the long run. It can be difficult to handle more discourses and can become problematic due to discrimination by others and it can be problematic to have others accept your social and cultural groups.
ReplyDelete