Language education builds critical thinking

Language education builds critical thinking

By A. Chaedar Alwasilah

BANDUNG (JP): The following is a response to Riyadi Santosa's
article Language democratization needs more understanding in The
Jakarta Post's July 13 edition. The article was written in
reaction to my earlier piece, Language democratization a must, in
the Post's July 3 issue. Santosa's elaboration on the "what" and
"how" aspects of a discourse helps readers understand other
important facets of language democratization that I did not touch
on specifically.

Under his analytical framework, the bureaucracy and the people
are the "who", representing the unequal status quo. The political
message, including indoctrination, constitutes the "what", while
the "how", or the medium used, is the political language -- the
most obvious feature of which is the use of political jargon and
euphemism.

Santosa's citation of his own research that "the old regime
arrogantly chose jargon, euphemism, particular grammar,
attitudinal epithet and one-sided argument types of text in its
political discourse" obviously promotes his argument. In other
words, Santosa agrees that it is euphemism, not grammar or the
representation (phonological or graphological), that really
matters.

To the list of sociolinguistic facets mentioned above, one may
add the "why" aspect. Ruling regimes all over the world, by hook
or by crook, try to maintain the status quo and dominate the
people.

During the New Order era, editors and reporters were often
called, threatened or even persecuted to control their reports
dealing with political or sensitive issues. The so-called pers
yang bertanggungjawab (responsible press) itself was a one-sided
policy by the government to control the press.

It is true that language consists of or is analyzable in terms
of register or style, phonology, graphology, grammar, cohesion
and coherence and grammar of discourse.

Such a scholarly and technical analysis of
microsociolinguistics is undoubtedly important and intellectually
challenging, especially for language scholars, but it is not
necessarily relevant to a discussion on politics as part of
macrosociolingusitics.

It has been evident in the literature of language and
political discourse that in-depth analysis focuses on diction --
namely the choice of words. It is the word more than anything
else, such as tone or style, that carries the meaning of an
expression.

In our current political discourse, regardless of how and when
it is pronounced, the popular phrase mikul dhuwur mendem jero
(respect the living and honor the dead) for example, is perceived
as a concept diametrically opposed to democratization.

The Watergate scandal in the United States shows us an example
of how the Watergate conspirators tried to distort and mask
reality and to avoid responsibility or guilt for the lies and
crimes they committed. The Watergate investigation revealed the
so-called language of non-responsibility, a prominent feature of
which is the frequent misuse of technical jargon. When
appropriated for use in politics, such jargon often serves to
mask the true nature of what is happening.

Such language also utilized passive voice rather than active
voice. Instead of saying "I was curious" or "I thought of it", a
Watergate witness would say "it piqued my curiosity" or "it
crossed my mind". Yet again, in analyzing the syntax, we must
analyze the vocabulary (jargon, euphemism and political language)
bound by the syntax.

Both Santosa and I share the idea that the majority of people,
due to a lack of education, are politico-linguistically
victimized. Few of them are fully conscious of the ways, subtle
or not subtle, in which the language wrapped in the ideology of
national development is used dishonestly to mislead and
manipulate.

We are reminded of past political campaigns in which the
people were abused and victimized politically, especially by the
ruling political organization. Their very perception of the world
and national developments was clearly shaped by political
language.

All these are reasons enough to redefine language education as
an effort to liberate the people from the systematic linguistic
victimization by politicians. Such a liberation begins with
awareness of the manipulation of political language. Euphemism,
for example, will never show any signs of disappearing. Thus the
awareness of euphemism should be a goal of language education. In
this framework, language education vis-a-vis language
democratization should be redefined accordingly.

The people, including the bureaucracy, should learn to be
efficient in using language -- that is, when dealing with
communicating government policies. By way of comparison, the
Federal Security Agency in the United States, with nearly 100
clients on its books, once analyzed its communication lines. The
survey showed that office documents could be cut 20 percent to 50
percent with the result of improving clarity and saving
taxpayers' money in paper and payrolls. The study also showed
that linguistic efficiency correlates positively with economic
efficiency.

In Indonesia, where oral communication is more prevalent,
linguistic inefficiency is worse than that described above. Most
Indonesian bureaucrats do not know how to speak, let alone write,
effectively. The reasons are numerous, but the most logical one
is insufficient education.

The majority of our bureaucrats hold only high school
diplomas. Their language education was textbook-oriented,
creating a skill-based use of the language instead of an
environment-oriented and critical thinking-based understanding.
It is no exaggeration that the failure of political communication
nowadays is caused by the low communication ability of the
bureaucracy.

Language education should be designed to enhance people's
critical thinking. Language education professionals now must
reject the notion that language study is simply to develop
language skills and basic employment skills. The most important
aspect of language education is to teach the use of language as a
vehicle of democracy. A commitment to democracy requires a
commitment to the struggle for language rights, including the
country's regional languages. The policy allowing schools to
introduce regional languages as part of muatan lokal (the local
content) is a commendable measure to promote democracy.

Being critical means that one must be able to understand
hidden truths and to uncover the essence of a message presented
in different genres, styles or varieties of language. In 1971,
the National Council of Teachers of English in the U.S. passed a
resolution to "find means to study dishonest and inhumane uses of
language and literature by advertisers, to bring offenses to
public attention, to propose classroom techniques for preparing
children to cope with commercial propaganda".

Language teachers in Indonesia should also follow suit. Their
voice so far has not been heard and will never be listened to
unless their existence is recognized as a potential for political
education.

Reform in language curricula is necessary to empower them to
function optimally in the democratization process. Textbook-based
language education and language skill acquisition are not bad,
but they are not effective in developing cultural literacy needed
for living in the era of globalization.

We are living in a world increasingly bound by the mass media,
where reality is simplified into symbols, namely language. In no
way do we have time to recheck secondhand reports with firsthand
observations. We are now overwhelmed by perplexing artificial
creations of the mass media. To survive, we have to count on our
critical thinking skills.

Literacy should be perceived as one's ability to function
culturally in society to the fullest of one's potential. From
this point of view, the environment, including the work place,
must be the substitute for textbooks and critical thinking for
the four language skills.

For bureaucrats, literacy means the ability to communicate
intelligently, effectively and democratically, given their
mission to serve the public.

The writer is a graduate school lecturer at the Teachers
Training Institute, Bandung.

Window: During the New Order era, editors and reporters were
often called, threatened or even persecuted to control their
reports dealing with political or sensitive issues.