the deep structure of obscene language
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 09 October 2014, At: 15:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of CurriculumStudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcus20
The deep structure ofobscene languageAnn Sevcik , Bethany Robbins & AnthonyLeonardPublished online: 08 Nov 2010.
To cite this article: Ann Sevcik , Bethany Robbins & Anthony Leonard (1997)The deep structure of obscene language, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29:4,455-470, DOI: 10.1080/002202797183991
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/002202797183991
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the useof the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 15:
21 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
The deep structure of obscene language
ANN SEVCIK, BETHANY ROBBINSand ANTHONY LEONARD
This paper describes a school-based qualitative research project at a high school insuburban northern Virginia. The paper concerns how the authors studied obscenelanguage with students as partners and what the group began to learn from theexperience, particularly about the students’ perspectives. Seven predicaments aredescribed in terms of the authors’ conception of the deep structure of obscenelanguage. This narrative account engages with moral and epistemological issuesinherent in an action-oriented, team approach to systematic inquiry.
At Manassas Park High School in suburban northern Virginia (USA), ourteam of practising teachers and university faculty explored obscene lan-guage with students as partners. Building on an action-oriented, teamapproach to continuing professional development, the infrastructureincludes a master’s degree programme at George Mason University and asubsequent professional forum, the Teacher Researcher Center. Both the`school-based master’ s’ programme and the Teacher Researcher Centerrepresent George Mason University’ s Institute for Educational Transfor-mation’s (IET) commitment to creating integrated partnerships betweenthe university and public schools and to working with practising teachers ascolleagues, mutually developing our careers in teaching (Sockett l993).
Taking part: July 1993 to July 1994
The project involved a number of people during our � rst year. The IETteam included two of us, Bethany Robbins and Tony Leonard, who wantedto use the context of In-School Suspension (ISS) for their master’s degreeresearch. Tony `coordinated’ ISS during three of his � ve teaching periodseach day, and Bethany taught in the special education programme. AnnSevcik, a retired high school teacher with an adjunct faculty appointment,was the team’s university-based partner. About 20 students, referred to
j. curriculum studies, 1997, vol. 29, no. 4, 455– 470
Ann Sevcik is an adjunct instructor in the Institute for Educational Transformation (IET) atGeorge Mason University – Prince William, 7946 Donegan Dr., Manassas VA, 22110, USA(email: [email protected]). She is a retired high school social studies teacher with anacademic and practical background in philosophy and qualitative classroom research.Bethany Robbins and Anthony Leonard are graduates of IET’s Master of Educationprogramme. Both are practising teachers, Bethany Robbins in special education withManassas Park (VA) Public Schools and Tony Leonard, currently in physical educationwith Stafford County (VA) Public Schools.
0022–0272/97 $12·00 Ñ 1997 Taylor & Francis Ltd
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f C
alif
orni
a Sa
nta
Cru
z] a
t 15:
21 0
9 O
ctob
er 2
014
ISS for using obscene language, were involved during the 1993–94 phasethrough conversations Bethany and Tony initiated with them individually.In the � nal stages of the � rst year’ s work, six of those students, some ofthem sent to ISS more than once for using obscene language, wereintensively and collaboratively involved in analysis and critique of theirlived experiences with obscene language.
Beginning with educative conversation: looking for acentral and disturbing research topic
When we � rst sat down together Bethany, Tony and I did not have in minda speci� c research question or even a topic. To foster an unrestrainedsearch for school-based research possibilities in ISS and to becomepersonally and professionally acquainted so we could function as a team,we framed our initial meetings as `educative conversations’ (Noddings1988, Gitlin et al. 1992, Hollingsworth 1992). Our experiences in themaster’s programme seminars convinced us that signi� cant issues ofsubstantial interest can emerge from informal talk geared to exploration,mutual engagement, and a sense of responding and caring. Our intentionduring the initial team meetings involving only the three of us was toformulate and articulate our own ideas, hear others’ perspectives, andintegrate practice and theory. We expected rational argument and persua-sion to occur but, primarily, we wanted to discover questions and dilemmasin ISS rather than take and defend positions.
During the conversations we learned that using obscene language wassalient among the reasons teachers give for sending students to ISS. Webegan to talk about our personal views and experiences with obscenity andto imagine others’ perspectives. John Singleton’s � lm, Boyz N the Hood,provided a complex perspective on obscene language, in some ways foreignto us, and discussing the � lm prompted questions that interested us: Whatdistinguishes obscenity intended to incite physical violence from that whichis intended to oppress or to show affection? Noticing that profane languageis not used in the � lm, we wondered what ideas and customs characterizethe distinction between profanity (blasphemous language) and obscenity(language that is repulsive and offensive but not irreverent)? And especially,to what extent does Singleton’ s story play out Ludwig Wittgenstein’sobservation that t̀he limits of my language mean the limits of my world’ .
When obscene language surfaced as an ISS topic, we began to thinkabout how we might examine it in a substantial way by studying its deepstructure (Hamlyn l978, Belenky et al. l986, Stout l988). We realized that,lacking previous literature on this speci� c topic, we would have to con-ceptualize the `deep structure of obscene language’ using our own practicaland theoretical knowledge. Re� ecting on our rich, sometimes confusingconversations that had washed back and forth through our personal andprofessional experiences, we found emerging themes and from them weconstructed a conceptual – and de� nitely provisional – framework for thedeep structure of obscene language.
ann sevcik ET AL.456D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Cal
ifor
nia
Sant
a C
ruz]
at 1
5:21
09
Oct
ober
201
4
Three speci� c themes had helped us articulate, explore and developour perspectives on obscenity, especially as we use or do not use itourselves:
� the relationships existing between or among people in particularevents;
� their concomitant dispositions to act in particular contexts; and
� their epistemic stances, who knows and how, during those events.
We conceived of this deep structure as unacknowledged rather thanunconscious, that is, as a question of epistemology, not psychology. Thedeep structure as we imagine it is not hidden in the psyche awaitingdiscovery; its unarticulated status does not represent a de� cit nor suggestremediation. It does not claim to account for obscene language. Thestructure is simply a dimension of self-awareness or consciousness notyet constructed (Searle 1994). In terms of doing research, it is a way to openthe possibility of an analysis which attends to the substance of obscenelanguage (Geertz 1973).
Bethany, Tony and I agreed that we had, to some extent and rathervaguely, talked about those three themes, but we also agreed that wedid not entirely understand or share each other’s point of view aboutthem. For example, Bethany distinguished among various contexts inwhich obscene language was acceptable or unacceptable whereas Tonyclaimed to make no distinctions of that sort. I was troubled by therelationships and epistemic stance suggested in the `affectionate’ use ofobscene words, but Tony’s view was that when used among friends, thewords are not `obscene’ . We all puzzled over the notion of disposition: Isour use of obscene language more like a habit or a decision? And is its usein� uenced more by ritual or reason?
Re� ecting on our initial team meetings also produced observationsabout framing the research. Our wide-ranging conversations exposingour own multiple and tentative perspectives suggested that we neededto concentrate the work of the project on learning to probe events andilluminate issues with students as partners, not subjects. Our research – ourfuture actions and analyses – needed to centre on articulating and trying tounderstand a variety of perspectives on obscene language and its manifes-tations in ISS referrals. We needed to take practical action grounded inemerging enlightenment, not engineer a solution for a predetermined ortaken-for-granted problem (Elliott 1991, Prawat 1993, Hollingsworth andSockett l994, McTaggart 1994). In correspondence with that, working inthe qualitative paradigm positioned us to examine `deep structure’ and`obscene language’ as cultural phenomena rather than as test cases forhypotheses and existing theories.
By the end of September, Tony, Bethany and I had become acquainted,and we were beginning to develop a friendly and trusting professionalrelationship. I was encouraged because it seemed we had captured the spiritof autonomy that would promote collegiality and fuel our ability to functionas a team (Sockett l993). We had, indeed, discovered and begun to explore atopic that was genuinely disturbing. We had not yet speci� cally framed an
the deep structure of obscene language 457D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Cal
ifor
nia
Sant
a C
ruz]
at 1
5:21
09
Oct
ober
201
4
orienting question for the project, but we had developed a constellation ofdilemmas and questions related to the central questions everyone in themaster’s programme works on in different ways.
� How do we understand ourselves as people and as teachers?
� How do we create knowledge of our world through the forms andgenres of language?
� How do we seek knowledge and understanding of our world, ofstudents, classrooms and schools?
� How do we build learning communities and re� ective practice?(Beliefs and Principles in IET Practice (IET l995))
Ideas and possibilities for systematic and useful research were beginning toemerge from our initial work. The conversations were encouraging, butstill, we took the next step – expanding the dialogue beyond our three-member team – warily.
Taking action: engaging suspended students inconversation about obscene language
We knew we were conceptually richer as a result of our initial exploration,but by the end of September, what was more apparent to us than that wasour state of exhaustion. To provide procedural rest-and-rehabilitation afterslogging through the swamps of conversation for three meetings, Bethanyand Tony decided to return to � rm ground and design a questionnaire,something broadly based just in case the deep structure of obscene languagedid not materialize beyond our team conversations.
As each student entered ISS for the day Tony handed him or her aquestionnaire asking: Why were you sent to ISS? Do you think that wasfair? Why or why not? He read the responses immediately, sometimesasking the writers to clarify or elaborate. When students had not written, heengaged them in conversation about why their point of view was importantand how he and Bethany planned to use the responses. With that addedbackground, he again invited them to respond. Sometimes they wrote;sometimes not. Tony then sent all the questionnaires to Bethany. At somepoint during the day, she went to the ISS room, approaching the reluctantstudents not as the authorized teacher but more as a quasi-of� cial amicusISS, giving her own perspective on the research and basically con� rminginformation Tony had given them. Talking with the students in this way,she elicited responses in most cases and, enjoying her novel relationshipwith the students, noticed the difference between `interviewing’ and `con-versing’ .
Tony and Bethany read the responses daily through October notingcarefully the students’ perspectives on a variety of ISS issues. But one dayin early November, literally in a � ash, Bethany thought she recognizeddeep structure in a response concerning obscene language and rushed downto the ISS room to discuss it with Tony. John (students asked that theirreal names be used) was a senior who had written verbatim, including thedashes used to represent obscene words:
ann sevcik ET AL.458D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Cal
ifor
nia
Sant
a C
ruz]
at 1
5:21
09
Oct
ober
201
4
W hy were you sent to ISS? Because I had my head down and somebodysmacked me in the back of the neck. I jumped up and said what the f - - - .[The teacher] said go to the of® ce. I said what about whoever smacked myneck. She said she didn’ t [sic] see nothing. I said that [sic] a crock of s - - t andwent to the of� ce.Do you think that was fair? Why or why not? [John circled `Why not’ .]Because I reacted like any adult would do when they were asleep.
Bethany and Tony were excited because John’ s response provided such aclear glimpse of what lay just beneath the surface of obscene language froma suspended student’ s point of view. In his response, they felt Johnindicated his relationships with the teacher and with the other student,his disposition toward each of them, and his epistemic stance.
What caught their attention initially was John’s epistemic stance.Knowing what `any adult would do’ , he simply imitates his world in areceived and subjective way (Belenky et al. 1986). During the event as wellas later, responding to the ISS questionnaire, he does not question hisdisposition to jump up and exclaim. Concerning his relationship withthe other student, he does not know exactly who `smacked’ him but,apparently, it is not some recognizable enemy close by. His immediateattention to the teacher suggests she is dominant, and possibly respected,even allowing for John’ s opinion of her lack of information about whathappened. The fact that John actually carries out her directive and goes tothe of� ce supports the idea of her dominance and, possibly, of John’sawareness of having broken a rule. His epistemic stance seems to involveadults and rules, perhaps in con� ict; his various dispositions and theirconsequences are unexamined; and his relationships are clearly complex.Looking at this incident in terms of its deep structure from John’s point ofview gave us a start on describing obscene language events in a rudimentaryway. We were excited and, again, encouraged.
Tony and Bethany continued to gather and interpret responses from allthe referred students, but now paying particular attention to incidentsinvolving obscene language. Using the questionnaire plus conversationmethod, they gradually developed relationships with a dozen students forwhom obscene language was not only a lived experience but also a problemin terms of their being referred to ISS, some of them more than once.
We also continued to search the literature, but now we searched makinguse of additional ideas the students were telling us about. For example,judging by their responses to the question about fairness, they seemed to bequite interested in issues concerning justice. We noticed that Krystal andChris questioned the teachers’ fairness and authority, that is, the teachers’standing as experts in these matters, but they did not seem to question theteachers’ legitimized power nor did they seem to notice their own illegiti-mate power.
W hy were you sent to ISS? I was arguing w/ my teacher and called her a bitch.Do you think that was fair? Why or why not? Not two days. Maybe one forlosing my temper w/ her because the � ght was her fault. (Krystal)Why were you sent to ISS? For saying `f - - - you’ to another student.
the deep structure of obscene language 459D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Cal
ifor
nia
Sant
a C
ruz]
at 1
5:21
09
Oct
ober
201
4
Do you think that was fair? Why or why not? It was fair for me to be placed inISS. It was not fair to me when the student w/ whom my altercation was withreceived no punishment. (Chris)
The students’ acknowledged concern with ethical issues and their unac-knowledged concern with political matters led us into the literature ofcritical theory and critical research (Freire 1973, Giroux 1988, McLaren1993, 1994, Kincheloe 1994).
Our attempt to gather and probe obscene language events, engagestudents’ interest and establish a sense of mutual trust and caring continuedthrough the winter months. As a group began to take shape, Bethany andTony looked ahead for ways they could bring the students together tocollaboratively explore issues that were emerging from the individualconversations.
Designing a � eld trip: creating a situation for collaborationand careful critique
Structuring a forum and conceiving of a pedagogy driven by critique withstudents as partners was, arguably, the easiest decision Bethany and Tonymade. They wanted, basically, to spend a day with ISS students the way wespend seminar days in the master’s programme. Using insider knowledge ofthe school’s context, they shaped their ideas into a plan for taking some ofthe students they had been talking with about obscene language on a full-day � eld trip. At our team meeting in January, they told me about theirplan.
They would invite eight or ten students to go to a recreation center nearthe school and spend a day in April probing obscene language. During the� rst phase of the day’ s work – the presentation – they would show Boyz Nthe Hood, editing out two sexually explicit scenes and stopping once ortwice to write brief re� ections. Then in the analysis phase, the group wouldtalk about incidents and ideas in the � lm, connecting them to their ownideas and experiences and, most likely, raising more questions. Followingthat discussion, Bethany and Tony envisioned a strolling critique over thelunch hour when everyone could enjoy delivered pizza, walk throughoutthe recreation centre, play ping-pong, and talk very informally about theideas that were emerging from the discussions. Finally, everyone wouldregroup for 60 minutes of collaborative critique to dig into the ideasdeveloped during the day. That session would be videotaped and tran-scribed. As soon as the group returned to school from the recreation centre,Bethany and Tony planned to ask the students to write something aboutobscene language and about the � eld trip. Five or six weeks later theyplanned to ask: Since our � eld trip, has anything changed about your use ofobscene language?
Integrating their reading on critical research, Bethany and Tony alsodecided that in addition to exploring issues raised that day by the students,they would put two obscene words `on the table’ themselves – `bitch’ and`nigger’ . They chose those two primarily because, as a white woman and a
ann sevcik ET AL.460D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Cal
ifor
nia
Sant
a C
ruz]
at 1
5:21
09
Oct
ober
201
4
black man, those words were distinctly part of their own lived experiences.Also, they suspected that exploring those `concepts’ with students wouldbring the issues of gender and hegemony into the discussion, themesrelated to obscene name calling that had continued to interest us duringour team meetings as we discussed ideas emerging from the questionnairesand from the literature on critical theory. With the research procedurevisualized in this way, the orienting question evolved: Given the opportunityto speak as critical agents, what will we and the ISS students learn about thedeep structure of obscene language?
The potential in Bethany and Tony’s plan was immediately clear to meand very exciting, but my � rst question was, `Do you think your principaland the kids’ parents will go for that?’ Paying careful attention to issues ofpublic accountability and privacy, Bethany and Tony framed their requestto parents as an invitation rather than as a permission slip. Explaining theirintention to learn with students as partners, not to punish them further,they invited eight students to go on the � eld trip and elicited agreementfrom all but one of the students’ parents or guardians. One student declinedthe invitation because she needed to leave school at noon to go to work. Thegroup was ready. Including Bethany and Tony, there were two African-Americans and six European-Americans, two young women and six youngmen. Of course the principal, Ben Kiser, was in general terms a member ofthe school–university partnership, but we knew he needed to be veryspeci� cally informed about this sensitive project. He already had a friendly,trusting professional relationship with Bethany and Tony, but he could notsupport our arguable plan until he had considered some institutionalperspectives and administrative issues embedded in the project. Fullyinformed and aware of the risks, he gave the project his unquali� edsupport.
Learning from the � eld trip and the follow-up
The � eld trip day began with a festive atmosphere – energy, engagement,and a sense of emancipation – which infused Bethany and Tony as well asthe six high school students. The air of friendliness and spontaneity was nodoubt tempered by having two young teachers as members of the group,but Bethany and Tony felt that the mood was not seriously impaired bytheir involvement. Everyone had previously seen Boyz N the Hood indiffering informal and social situations so stopping the � lm to discussbrie� y two or three incidents and situations involving obscene language didnot seem to disrupt the continuity of the � lm nor the festive ethos, concernsBethany and Tony shared while planning the day.
When the � lm – the presentation phase – ended, Bethany and Tonyimmediately began the analysis phase by eliciting everyone’ s thoughts,helping the students use their own experiences to elaborate and clarify theirideas and, above all, seeking to draw out and formulate questions anddilemmas, their own as well as those of the students. The analysis wasapparently something of a struggle for everyone, ending as probing con-versations often do without a sense of resolution. People carried the
the deep structure of obscene language 461D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Cal
ifor
nia
Sant
a C
ruz]
at 1
5:21
09
Oct
ober
201
4
unresolved and perplexing ideas into strolling critique where, withoutBethany and Tony, pairs of friends walked and talked, keeping the morecompelling issues alive, recalling additional incidents and ideas, some ofthem seeming to be irrelevant, and raising more questions. The group cameback together after lunch to take another look at their experiences withobscene language and to � gure out what their stories and beliefs mightmean.
In the course of the collaborative critique, students told Bethany andTony that they de� nitely think of and treat profanity differently fromobscenity and that `friendly’ obscene language is not a problem since itenjoys an entirely different status from `serious’ obscene language. Theysaid (though not in these terms) that `serious’ obscene language is a primaryweapon in a pitched battle going on between holders of legitimate power(the teachers) and holders of illegitimate power (the students). At issuefrom the students’ point of view is their commitment to `getting respect’ .
But the predominant theme during the discussion is obscenename-calling. During the session, Bethany and Tony as well as the studentsseem to expand their understanding of the gender implications in `bitch’ .As the discussion develops it becomes clear that even within the � eld tripgroup there are multiple interpretations for the meaning and usage of`bitch’ and that ambiguity is emerging where certainty existed before. Thestudents begin to question their use of `bitch’ , but they staunchly defendtheir use of `nigger’ . As Tony probes, some of the irony in the f̀riendly’ useof `nigger’ becomes apparent, but its hegemonic aspect seems to remaininvisible to the students. They discuss having looked up `nigger’ in thedictionary and being aware that it means `fool’ and `uneducated orignorant’ , but the way the term is used among African-Americans as wellas among European-Americans is not taken to be a problem from thestudents’ point of view.
By the end of the session, the atmosphere gradually shifted fromfestive to serious, but still, Bethany’s remark, [̀The bus is here.] I thinkwe better go’ , is quickly countered by Thomas: `No, man, we don’ t got togo!’ Back at the school, the students wrote favourably about the � eld tripexperience, expressing their new awareness of the relational aspects ofobscene language: `I really didn’ t realize how this made people feel’ , and`I never realized how offensive[ly] people take the cursing’ . The follow-upquestionnaire Tony and Bethany sent out about � ve weeks after the � eldtrip prompted three written responses and some brief hallway con-versations. In their comments, the students do not suggest that they seethemselves as reformed or therapeutically �̀ xed’ . Con� icts and questionspersist for them, but apparently they were able to monitor themselvesbecause, among all of the � eld trip students, only John had been back toISS. A new question crystallized: Other than ISS, where is there a contextin the school – a time or place or expectation – for students to continueprobing and acting upon their emerging questions and ideas about obscenelanguage? In effect, they begin to engage with a potentially productivestruggle, but there is no institutionally sanctioned forum where adults andstudents can work together to illuminate and enhance the struggle.
ann sevcik ET AL.462D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Cal
ifor
nia
Sant
a C
ruz]
at 1
5:21
09
Oct
ober
201
4
Chris’s comments illustrate the point. Immediately following the � eldtrip he wrote, in part: .̀ . . I learned that the language is actually offensive topeople and that there are better ways to get ideas across’ . Asked � ve weekslater if anything had changed, he wrote:
Yes. Things have changed a little bit. I have tried not to use obscene languageas often and if I do, it rings in my head and I tell the person w/whom I amtalking that I do say it in a nondemeaning way.
What we see as important in his comments is, � rst, the suggestion thathe is thinking in terms of his relationships, his disposition to act and hisawareness of giving respect. He is not thinking in terms of his ownjusti� cations for breaking rules in the ongoing battle to secure powerand `get respect’ for himself. Second, he moves the conversation andpossibly the critique of obscene language out of the `classroom’ and intothe hallways where it becomes a lived experience he shares with otherstudents. He keeps the dialogue going, an important if tenuous line ofaction that could contribute to developing an authentic community. Hestays in the question, re� ecting and thinking critically about theconsequences of his actions. He becomes not just a changed agent, butpotentially an agent of change among his acquaintances. Of course thecritical theorists’ caveat remains: Is Chris emerging as a potentially self-regulating, autonomous agent – the type of citizen a democracyneeds – or is he still a puppet responding to just another face, albeit acaring, friendly one, of legitimized power? A sanctioned setting forcontinuing open discussion of his questions and actions might be usefulfor Chris and for the culture of the school.
Expanding the forum: writing a research report,conferring with teacher researchers and proposing tofaculty colleagues
In May and June, using information from students’ expressed perspectivesand from a cursory interpretation of the collaborative critique transcript,Bethany and Tony wrote a comprehensive research memo. It includedinformation from their literature search, details of their research (ontology,procedure, methods, preliminary interpretations and emerging questions),and as an appendix, a 40-page transcript of the ® nal collaborative sessionwith students. Interms of the project, it was a propitious time to review events, developsome initial interpretations and frame the next phase. Since it wascoincidentally the end of Tony and Bethany’ s master’ s programme, awritten report in some form was essential as part of their exit requirementfor the degree. An additional requirement was that they present andcritique their work in a conference setting with their colleagues in themaster’ s programme. The interest Bethany and Tony’ s topic generated inthat forum of teacher researchers suggested that the inquiry was beginningto map moral and epistemological concerns broadly shared by the K± 12teachers in the programme.
the deep structure of obscene language 463D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Cal
ifor
nia
Sant
a C
ruz]
at 1
5:21
09
Oct
ober
201
4
Bethany also presented some of the project’s ideas to a school com-mittee made up of faculty who had not shared in the inquiry. Thecommittee’s reaction to her invitation to join in the dialogue and, possibly,programme development growing out of the obscene language project wasquick and decisive. They rejected it claiming that discussing the topicamong faculty and parents, never mind with students, would be bothinappropriate and impossible. Empathetically, we recalled our own initialreactions to the topic and the initial reaction of some of the ISS students.We also noted without surprise the difference between the committeemembers’ presumptions and those of people who had participated in theinquiry as it evolved or who had some parallel experience with the power ofinquiry to cultivate change.
Taking a closer look: our evolving understanding of thedeep structure of obscene language
We did not develop additional data with students during the next schoolyear, 1994–95, but we did continue to work with the previous year’stranscript in the context of IET’s Teacher Researcher Center, a pro-fessional development community of kindergarten to university teachersinterested in school-based research. Circulating emerging ideas amongourselves and other members of the Center, we continued to scrutinizeand discuss the original data.
In the � eld trip transcript the students’ stories and comments aboundwith ideas related to relationships, dispositions and epistemic stances, buttheir straightforward descriptions and declarations on those themes as thesession opens gradually give way to more complex and con� icted perspec-tives. Seeking to understand the students’ perspective of obscene languageexposed seven predicaments grounded in deep structure themes, all ofwhich suggest ideas for further critique with students.
1. The egregious contract predicament
When deciding whether or not to use obscene language, initially thestudents say they rely on a `contract’ drawn to further their commitmentto `getting respect’ . They see themselves as treating people lawfully,breaking the respect contract only for reasons they believe are justi� ed.However, in their stories they tell about encountering signi� cant andcomplex dif� culties when they try to act according to the `contract’ .Examining their beliefs during the collaborative critique, the studentsnotice that their `contracts’ are not generic. They are actually quitepersonal, drawn between individuals, so as `contracts’ they differ insubstantial ways from teacher to teacher, friend to friend, enemy toenemy. But our post-project analysis suggests further that in most casesthe respect `contracts’ are not actually mutual agreements anyway. Theyare more like rules of engagement, designed and enacted by each side in anongoing battle for power and, by extension, for respect. Looking at this
ann sevcik ET AL.464D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Cal
ifor
nia
Sant
a C
ruz]
at 1
5:21
09
Oct
ober
201
4
predicament in terms of critical theory, we could say that the students’agency is not self-generated. It is constructed within differentially con-stituted relations of power which are socially, culturally and institutionallyinduced.
2. The public predicament
The students’ belief in personalized contracts and rule-based behaviour inthe school context generates a predicament for them vis-aí -vis non-schoolcontexts. Since there are no speci� c rules and punishments concerningobscene language in public and since there is no general social contract forrespect, the students’ contract idea cannot serve them as a guide in publicsituations. The students take rules, punishments and contracts as recogniz-able signs in school, and when rules, punishments and contracts do notexist in public, there is, from their point of view, no reason to abstain. Thestudents’ rationale is clear, but it leads them inexorably into con� icted andsometimes violent situations outside the school.
3. The caring predicament
The students distinguish between irreverent, profane language and non-blasphemous, obscene language, and they are sympathetic to the way inwhich profanity can offend. But for some of the students, a dispositiontoward caring and refraining from using profanity on that account con� ictswith the familiar but egregious contract for respect. Using the legalistic,contract-type relationship and the received, rule-based epistemic stance toguide their actions, some of the students � nd themselves constrained toacting in ways that con� ict with their acknowledged beliefs and disposi-tions. Many caring relationships and incidents are described by thestudents, but they are sometimes cut off from acting upon them becausethe primary rationale they acknowledge does not legitimize caring.
4. The what-I-say-is-not-what-I-think-I-mean predicament
`Friendly’ and `serious’ obscenities have transparent as well as apparentdeep structure elements which are revealed and examined by students whenthey discuss their use of the term `bitch’ . The transparent demeaningundertones related to gender become apparent as students begin to examinetheir experiences and their knowledge – `We look up these kinds of things[in the dictionary]’ , according to Thomas. Examining the undertones andtheir own intentions, the students discover that even among the � eld tripgroup there are various interpretations and inconsistencies that can obfus-cate or obstruct their intention to be f̀riendly’ or `serious’ . Critical theorysuggests that during the collaborative critique, what students had compla-cently passed over as banal in `bitch’ was successfully made remarkable,ambiguous and questionable.
the deep structure of obscene language 465D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Cal
ifor
nia
Sant
a C
ruz]
at 1
5:21
09
Oct
ober
201
4
5. The who-gets-punished-for-what predicament
In the students’ experience, `serious’ and f̀riendly’ obscenity exist side byside in their relationships with adults and students alike, posing � agrant butunexamined contradictions and raising questions about who gets punishedin ISS, for what, and why. That our group of repeat referrals for usingobscene language was composed of one African-American and � ve Cauca-sian students (in a student body that is 13% African-American) callsattention to a curious situation. Critical theory suggests we are seeinglegitimized, institutional power serving its own interests. We note thisinterpretation with interest, believing that it raises questions which warrantclose attention in future work.
6. The blindness predicament
This predicament is closely related to who-gets-punished-for-what, but ithas an especially problematic aspect: the hegemony in the `friendly’ use of`nigger’ remains invisible to these students. Even with Tony and Bethany’ sdirect and repeated probing, the students resist the word’s inherent contra-diction of their disposition to be f̀riendly’ . This, in spite of their expressedknowledge, again drawn from the dictionary, that `nigger’ means any`uneducated, ignorant person’ or `stupid fool’ . But what is more gravelyproblematic, the students remain markedly blind to the hegemony vis-aí–visthe dominant holders of legitimized power who condone the `friendly’ useof `nigger’ by not considering its use a transgression, particularly amongAfrican-Americans. Critical theory suggests that, essentially, the holders oflegitimized power – in this case, de� ned by race rather than role – foster theAfrican-Americans’ acceptance of demeaning, patronizing insults. Thestudents are encultured in the context of hegemony, perpetuating theinsulting perspective but not acknowledging it.
7. The generative predicament
In their critical discussion, students clearly and repeatedly express theirdisposition to care, to be honest and fair, and to value and nurture thosequalities in their relationships. They seem willing to learn about andpractise treating people morally, but they do not view those interests aslegitimized concerns in the context of school. There, the legitimizedinterest is in treating people lawfully through rules, punishments and the(egregious) contract for respect. In effect, the dominance of the legalisticframework fosters individualistic interests giving the students’ sense ofsocial responsibility no room to grow.
The students’ predicaments expose a con� icted deep structure ofobscene language that appears to circumscribe and confound both intellectand action, creating limits to what is possible. On one hand, they describetheir belief in legalistic relationships, dispositions and epistemic references
ann sevcik ET AL.466D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Cal
ifor
nia
Sant
a C
ruz]
at 1
5:21
09
Oct
ober
201
4
that foster a political environment held together by the compressing forcesof legitimate and illegitimate power. That ethos disposes the students, andapparently the faculty as well, toward frustration and anger. An idealizedmutual contract for respect is acknowledged; received and subjectiveepistemic references are prominent. On the other hand, during the samecollaborative session students describe a constellation of authentic relation-ships, actual and potential, that they clearly value, and they repeatedlyacknowledge dispositions that make sense. However, these expressedrelationships and dispositions have little epistemic meaning in light ofwhat they know about the legitimized concerns in school.
But in the collaborative session there is also a clear and promisingimplication that critical re� ection can help loosen the knot. Throughout thetranscript there is a sense that everyone’s understanding of the deepstructure of obscene language, including Bethany and Tony’s, is evolving.It seems to be a mutual and recursive experience moving in � ts and starts,not necessarily forward. As the session draws to a close, in some ways thestudents’ comments about obscene language resemble their comments atthe beginning of the day, but in our view, there are both explicit andimplicit differences.
Explicitly, by the end of the day students are not quickly and freelychoosing obscenities when they try to frame a question or articulate a pointof view. What is particularly interesting to us is that, in the main, theircomments and questions at the end of the day are clearly about moralrelationships rather than about keeping or justi� ably breaking rules andcontracts for respect, and they are beginning to examine their dispositionsto act. Implicitly, the ideas students articulate become more complexepistemically, and some of the contradictions seem to be more apparentto them and problematic as they move toward a stance as seekers and awayfrom being knowers. For example, early in the discussion, Thomas andChris justify, without hesitation, their use of obscene language in public.
Thomas: When I use obscene language I use it with, like my friends. I’ ll besitting there in the hallway talking with my friends.Bethany: Are there other people around that can hear it?Chris and Thomas: Yeah.Bethany: OK, is there a possibility that the language is very offensive tothem?Thomas: But the way I see it is that it’ s a public place. I’m sitting there bymyself, and if they don’ t like what I’m saying, they can leave. Or when I wasat McDonald’s one time, we were sitting there � rst and this guy had anattitude and he said, `Every time you guys say something, it’ s `f’ this and `f’that. How come you can’t use proper language? And we told him, `Look, wewere here � rst. If you don’t like it, you can move. It’s a public place.’
Taking a similar stance on the use of `bitch’ , they are certain early in thediscussion that its use is also clearcut and not problematic. But later in thesession, beginning to bud as constructors of knowledge, they offer theirideas more as tentative propositions for examination rather than as � rmbeliefs for debate. They question their own point of view and inquire intoothers’ perspectives, much as Chris does responding to the follow-upquestionnaire in May (see above). In the closing minutes, Thomas,
the deep structure of obscene language 467D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Cal
ifor
nia
Sant
a C
ruz]
at 1
5:21
09
Oct
ober
201
4
having become alert to his own perspective on a bothersome image problemthat pursues him, inquires into Bethany’s perspective. To her comment,`. . . [I � nd obscene language] offensive because I hear people demeaningeach other on a daily basis’ , Thomas asks, `Do you � nd it offensive whenwe’re just doing it in the hallway in a playful manner?’ Later still, in hisresponse to the � eld trip day he wrote, `our language and peoples feelingsare valuable . . .’
In the closing minutes of the � eld trip and in their subsequent writtencomments, the students’ dispositions to use obscene language may appearon the surface to be substantially unchanged, but their rationales –re� ections on their relationships, actions and beliefs about who knowsand how – are quite different from their earlier expressions. The deepstructure of their language seems to be acknowledged, but not fathomed,reminding us of our own perspective, particularly in the early months of theproject. There is an inquiring stance in the closing minutes which ismarkedly different from earlier in the � eld trip day during thepresentation and analysis and, stepping back even further, radically differentfrom their responses to the initial ISS questionnaires.
What happens next: deciding, based on evidence, what isbetter and what is worse and then fashioning a course ofpromising action and re� ection
Part of the evidence, particularly the shifts in students’ dispositions andepistemic stance, suggests that it could be better for the In-SchoolSuspension programme to recentre its approach from punishment tore� ective teaching and learning. That is, ISS could seek to provide anexperience driven by active inquiry using some form of re� ective pedagogyand an emerging, self-generated curriculum determined by whateverthemes turn up in referred incidents. It would recast Tony as a teacherand learner rather than a `coordinator’ . Other evidence – the initialresponse of the faculty committee, the ways their response re� ects ourown and the students’ struggle through the � rst year of work – suggests thatit would be impractical, and possibly imprudent, to attempt transformingISS in such a radical and dramatic way at this time. The con� ict in theevidence indicates a point of departure and suggests orienting ideas forwhat happens next in ISS and, possibly, in the wider school community.For example, we see in the evidence the potential and importance offraming an approach to ISS that involves continuing inquiry and actionin which administrators, parents, students, school and university facultywork in an authentic integrated partnership. Incorporating critical theoryinto the inquiry as one interpretive lens seems promising, but employingcritical research as pedagogy needs to be carefully reconsidered.
The evidence guides us – and I include myself as a team member in theschool–university partnership – toward engaging with the dif� cult prob-lems of community and institutional organization that rest outside ourcustomary spheres of in� uence as teachers. However dif� cult it might be toengage with intercommunity and institutional issues, it would be worse to
ann sevcik ET AL.468D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Cal
ifor
nia
Sant
a C
ruz]
at 1
5:21
09
Oct
ober
201
4
ignore the students’ and teachers’ general response to inquiry and theparticular perspectives and predicaments we are beginning to acknowledge.It would be worse, in our view, partly because we are still interested in whatwe are continuing to learn about grounded curriculum and inquiry-basedpedagogy in ISS, but also because connections with other teaching andlearning situations are suggested in the evidence.
For example, discipline in general is a concern, and the evidencesuggests that the traditional framework for discipline – establishing rulesand enacting consistent punishments – can foster a variety of predicamentsthat bolster individualistic confrontation and confusion. Those outcomesare ironic since the customary intention of rules and punishments is tofoster development of an orderly and socially responsible community. Theevidence does not suggest that rules be abandoned but rather that rules andpunishments as the singular or even fundamental framework for commu-nity might be having the opposite of their desired effect. The evidence doessuggest seeking a balance, a way for people to deal with each other as aculture trying to foster a sense of social responsibility. We emphasize thatour evidence calls into question assumptions that guide decisions aboutestablishing discipline in a school; it does not suggest general positions orprescriptions for the content of rules and punishments themselves.
Another possibility, one relevant to regular classrooms, is suggested inevidence related to both the topic and method of our inquiry. One currentlyhigh-pro� le classroom issue in the USA concerns the use of obscenity andprofanity in writing and the problem of how texts with deviant languagemight be framed and discussed among students as well as with the teacher.Mark Twain’ s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Nathan McCall’sMakes Me Wanna Holler (1994) are examples of � ction and non-� ction thatare dif� cult, sometimes inadmissible, in classroom curricula where stan-dard literary analysis is the sole avenue for examining text. Our evidencesuggests that a form of re� ective pedagogy, one driven by authentic inquiryand self-generated curricula, based on constructing relationships amongpeople as well as among concepts and questions, could allow teaching andlearning with students as partners. With that approach, sociopolitical(Graph and Phalen 1995), dramaturgical (Hare et al. 1988) and folkloricanalyses (Bauman 1982) become plausible options along with literaryanalysis. Using a variety of analytic and interpretive approaches, materialsincorporating deviant language or other sensitive issues could becomeaccessible and actually useful items in the curriculum. An importantdistinction needs to be noted here concerning obscene language studentssometimes use in their classroom writing. Coherently engaging withstudents to examine the political, dramaturgical, folkloric or literaryfeatures of obscenity in their own writing seems to us to be entirelydifferent from simply allowing its � agrant use in the hope that somelegitimized words will emerge to replace those that are not legitimized(Diegmueller 1995).
Our work on the deep structure of obscene language is context andtopic speci� c. It is highly particular, but it is also deep-rooted and complex,allowing our research experiences to connect with and inform in some wayevery aspect of our teaching and learning. Widely relevant ideas and
the deep structure of obscene language 469D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Cal
ifor
nia
Sant
a C
ruz]
at 1
5:21
09
Oct
ober
201
4
perspectives continue to � ow from the work. That is not to say thatwe see generalizable solutions and models emerging. It is to say that, inseeking enlightenment, we discover interesting individual and institutionalproblems, and inquiring into them can generate coherent change andprofessional development.
References
Bauman, R. (1982) Ethnography of children’ s folklore. In P. Gilmore and A. A. Glatthorn(eds), Children In and Out of School: Ethnography and Education (Washington, DC:Center for Applied Linguistics), 172–186.
Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R. and Tarule, J. M. (1986) Women’sWays of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice and Mind (New York: Basic Books).
Diegmueller, K . (l995) Expletives deleted. Education Week, 14 (39), 36.Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change (Buckingham: Open University
Press).Freire, P. (l973) Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Seabury Press).Geertz, C. (1973) Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C. Geertz,
The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York: Basic Books), 3–30.Gitlin, A., Bringhurst, K ., Burns, M., Cooley, V., Myers, B., Price, K ., Russell, R. and
Tiess, P. (1992) Teachers’ Voices for School Change: An Introduction to EducativeResearch (New York: Teachers College Press).
Giroux, H. (l988) Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learning (SouthHadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey).
Graph, G. and Phalen, J. (1995) The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: A Case Study inCritical Controversy (New York: St Martins).
Hamlyn, D. W. (1978) Experience and the Growth of Understanding (London and Boston:Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Hare, A., Blumberg, H. and Goffman, E. (l988) Dramaturgical Analysis of SocialInteraction (New York: Praeger).
Hollingsworth, S. (1992) Learning to teach through collaborative conversation: a feministapproach. American Educational Research Journal, 29 (2), 373–404.
Hollingsworth, S. and Sockett, H. T. (eds) (1994) Teacher Research and EducationalReform, 93rd Yearbook, Part 1, of the National Society for the Study of Education(Chicago: NSSE).
Institute for Educational Transformation (IET) (l995) Beliefs and Principles in IETPractice (Fairfax, VA: George Mason University).
K incheloe, J. L. and McLaren, P. L. (1994) Rethinking critical theory and qualitativeresearch. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 138–157.
McLaren, P. (1993) Schooling as a Ritual Performance: Towards a Political Economy ofEducational Symbols and Gestures, 2nd ed. ( New York: Routledge).
McLaren, P. (1994) Life In Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy in the Foundationsof Education (New York: Longman).
McTaggart, R. (1994) Participatory action research: issues in theory and practice.Education Action Research, 2 (3), 313–347.
Noddings, N. (1988) An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional arrangements.American Journal of Education, 96 (2), 215–230.
Prawat, R. S. (1993) The value of ideas: problems versus possibilities in learning.Educational Researcher, 22 (6), 5–16.
Searle, J. R. (1994) The Rediscovery of the Mind (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Sockett, H. (1993) The Moral Base for Teacher Professionalism (New York: Teachers
College Press).Stout, J. (1988) Ethics After Babel: The Languages of Morals and Their Discontents (Boston:
Beacon Press).
the deep structure of obscene language470D
ownl
oade
d by
[U
nive
rsity
of
Cal
ifor
nia
Sant
a C
ruz]
at 1
5:21
09
Oct
ober
201
4