6 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Armchair Radicalism, July 7, 2002
This review is from: English and the Discourses of Colonialism (The Politics of Language) (Paperback)
This book seeks to expand upon themes first touched on in the author's previous book (The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language.1994), namely, the complex role played by the English language in British colonialism and the part played by that colonialism in the formation of the discourse of ELT. He also wishes to show that `The practice of colonialism produced ways of thinking, saying and doing that permeated back into the cultures and discourses of the colonial nations' (p.2). In general terms this is all to the good. Citizens of nations that once had large overseas colonies cannot be reminded often enough of the degree to which their present economic and cultural circumstances have been formed by their colonial past. It is also true that there is a certain strand of inward looking technicism present in applied linguistics and ELT, and any attempt to make practitioners - in the latter area in particular - think of their activities in broader terms than the promotion of effective second language acquisition must be welcome. However, in spite of the many telling points that are made, the credibility of Pennycook's central arguments is fatally undermined by his reliance on a totalising Foucauldian critique, the epistemological basis of which contradicts its own performance. It is to a brief exposition of this contradiction that I will now turn.
It is only a small exaggeration to say that for Pennycook discourse is all. Discourse here is not to be understood in the usual applied linguistics sense of language used at the suprasentential level. It refers rather to organisations of knowledge that define and limit how we look at and understand the world. The word "knowledge" in the previous sentence does not refer to any objective or independent phenomenon. As discourses shift and change over time what is taken to be knowledge does likewise. As there is no Archimedean point from which to view the world, all knowledge, all notions of truth, are held to be of strictly local validity and relevance.
Examples abound in this book of Pennycook's continued adherence to a strong form of this idea:
...there is no reality outside the discourses that construct our realities, only the possibility of critically analysing the truth effects of these discourses. (p.164)
This relativistic view which sees knowledge as rooted solely in the situation and condition from which it springs and denies it any degree of universality cannot be advanced without a performative self-contradiction. If it is impossible to step outside local and particular circumstances to make statements of universal validity, then it must be impossible for Pennycook too, even if that is exactly the point he wishes to make. In effect, he is saying to his readers that all claims to universal validity are groundless with the exception of his own: while everyone else is stuck in the quagmire of particularity, he jumps up to make his claim for universality. The viewpoint of Olympian detachment implicitly claimed by the statement quoted above cannot, by its own account, exist.
Some serious consequences flow from this contradiction. It is not possible to simultaneously be concerned with the state of the world and to believe that an objective description of that state (however tentative) is impossible. The whole thrust of this book indicates that he does believe that an objective description of the world is possible. If that is not so, then it is difficult to understand - to take one example from many possible - his deployment of household income statistics to support his argument that colonial education policy has helped to foster economic inequality in Hong Kong (p.197). While he explicitly rejects facts and reason as part of the enslaving discourse of the Enlightenment, he repeatedly resorts to a combination of them to convince his readers of the veracity of his argument.
There is another - perhaps deeper - problem with Pennycook's brand of epistemological relativism. If the notion of truth is wholly relativised to particular discourses or social practices, then it must be open to very grave doubt whether any notion of justice or injustice is tenable. The consequences of this for Pennycook's critique are not difficult to see. To take one example, he makes a convincing attack on the privileges enjoyed by foreign educational staff in Hong Kong. However, if we are to take him at his epistemological word, the authors of that system of privilege would have a ready response to his criticisms. They would only have to claim that within their discourse of education and development the privileges enjoyed by overseas staff are entirely justified. It is difficult to see how he could respond to such a retort. If he held to his stated beliefs, then he would be obliged to accept an equally valid perception of the situation - merely an alternative "truth effect" to his own - and fall silent. The only other option for him would be to offer a rejoinder based on some universally valid notion of truth and knowledge complete with a supporting array of facts and reasons.
To conclude, this book - appearances to the contrary notwithstanding - tends to support, rather than undermine, existing power relations in societies, and is more likely to encourage the despised and excluded to be content with their lot rather than seek to change it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
An Excellent Book on Colonialism and English Language, April 6, 2001
This review is from: English and the Discourses of Colonialism (The Politics of Language) (Paperback)
Pennycook has a strong insight and argument in English and the Discourses of Colonialism in which he brought lots of fresh ideas that I can make use of in my own research. One of the most useful sections that I can make use of most extensively is the one about colonialism and English Language and Teaching discourses.
Pennycook's argument about ELT and history and discourses of colonialism can be itemized as follows: 1. The colonial construction of Self and Other, of the `TE' and `SOL' remain in many domains of ELT most of whom are still untouched- not researched about. 2. Practices and theories of ELT don't only originate in Britain or the U.S. They are also imported from the colonized countries. 3. Colonialism, in research, shouldn't only be taken as a history of brutal exploitation but the culturally imbedded patterns of thought and practices within the boundaries of the colonized countries do create their own discourses of ELT that must be considered. 4. Curriculum and theory of ELT is not always exported from the Colonizer. The colonized cultures bear and give their ELT theories and practices, and import them to Britain and the U.S.
Those who are interested in ELT and TESOL or those who enjoy readings on Colonialism and Language issues will both enjoy and benefit from this first class book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
a book which should be read, June 19, 1999
This review is from: English and the Discourses of Colonialism (The Politics of Language) (Paperback)
Pennycook is convincing in arguing that there is a profoundly colonialist dynamic driving the English teaching industry. However, his thesis that things can never change is depressing, utterly mistaken, and (itself) symptomatic of the colonialist mentality he purports to criticise. Even so, the book should be read by people who intend to teach English overseas.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
