Raspberry column

[Timothy Mason]

The column raises at least three questions. First, it addresses
variations in linguistic skill, noting that these can be explained -
at least in part -  by differences in parental practices. Second, it
sees these differences as culturally determined, and deep-rooted. The
implication is that if they are to be changed, it will only be by
changing the minds of the parents - training them to be better
child-carers.  Third, it posits a close relationship between verbal
skill and success in school - and does not see this as in any way
questionable.

I said in my last post that there are good grounds for accepting the
first point. The second, on the other hand, is based in a strong -
and to my mind erroneous - model of cultural determinism. There are
likely to be many other reasons for parents to neglect verbal
interaction with their children than 'cultural' ones ; that is why I
raised the point about depression.

On the third point, I would note that there is some evidence to
suggest that the increase in schooling, with more and more young
people staying on for longer and longer, and the use of school
qualifications as entry tickets to the higher levels of the job
market has gone hand in hand with a restriction in intergenerational
social mobility. Schooling, far from offering increasing
opportunities for the children of the working class has restricted
them.

The edge that the children of the middle-classes have in the
schooling game is primarily *linguistic*. From Basil Bernstein's work
in the 60s to the more recent publications of Bernard Lahire, this is
a constant in the literature on school success. The good speaker, the
good writer, will amass paper qualifications, while his/her peer, who
may be equally quick to learn through other media than language, will
not.

In the era before mass-schooling, the non-verbally skilled could
still make their way through the system by showing competence in the
work world. Now, however, and increasingly, competence can only be
demonstrated through sitting written exams. The extent to which this
kind of competence maps onto the skills that are useful in the
workplace remains unquestioned - although the results that Jenks et
al found when they looked at the relationship between school success
and work success for earlier cohorts suggests that it may not be very
great.

In many societies, linguistic competence can lead to high rewards.
However, there are usually other criteria which can contribute to
status - a man may be a good hunter even if he cannot sing a good
song. In our own societies, however, we seem to reward certain kinds
of language skills while downplaying other forms of intelligence.
Moreover, they are not tested in the field, but prior to entry. Which
leads me to ask the anthropologically savvy on this list whether
there is usually a good fit between those capacities which are tested
to determine subsequent status - I'm thinking of initiation rituals -
and those which are actually of use in adult life.

Best wishes

Timothy Mason
  http://perso.club-internet.fr/tmason/index.htm