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.