I loved reading Phuong & Cioè-Peña’s “Perfect or Mocha: Language Policing and Pathologization.” A few points stood out. One, the CDR perspective “acknowledges that this pathologization happens not on the basis of an individual or community’s language practices but instead on others’ perceptions, who, regardless of their own identity, enforce the values and the perspectives under a white normative gaze” (130). I appreciate that Phuong & Cioè-Peña point out that discussions regarding normalcy must also include ideals around “language possession, language practice, and immigration status” – ideals I believe are often times left out of many scholarly discussions involving belongingness and education as a whole (131). The authors also mention that the “current nationalistic and monoglossic political context demands that language and immigration status be explicitly named,” which is even more evidently seen in the current societal and political landscape (131). Second, Phuong and Cioè-Peña highlight the idea of value. They mention how “Linguistically minoritized people of color with disabilities are often discounted as rightful citizens [...] thus reinforcing ideas of who belongs and who doesn’t, alongside ideas of whose bodies and linguistic practices are valued” (132). Such an idea of who is valued versus not is such an incredibly confusing concept to me. How is it that we live in a country which (to some extent) abides to the constitution that states “all men are created equal” yet practices so many different ways to dehumanize and devalue communities and then refuse to recognize the pain that comes from such embedded structural inequality? In my mind, it's full circle.
Third, Phuong and Cioè-Peña bring up the idea of cultural deprivation and how, while it’s no longer considered a disability classification, its “ideological underpinnings in situating educational problems within minoritized communities, rather than within educational structures, continues” (135). I love this point. Often times the U.S. education system (and other country’s education systems) focus the blame on the child, or their family, race, ethnicity, culture, disability etc.. Yet, seldom they focus the blame on themselves and the structural underpinnings that inhibit such children in seeking the rights and needs within education they are entitled to. As they mention, “language is used to reinforce both white supremacy and ableism, necessitating the lens of the white normative gaze to unpack how imperfection is attributed to individuals’ language practices” (135). Precisely! As mentioned in the next page, there’s an unspoken assumption that “normal and able-bodied students use language perfectly” (136). This funnels into the analysis of the prioritization of English over other languages. I find it ironic how often times English monoglossic identities are seen as the norm or what to strive for rather than celebrating multilingual identities. There’s so much beauty and diversity and intelligence that comes from multilingualism yet why is it that monolingualism is idealized (not saying that one is "better" than the other but rather pointing out the confusing lean towards viewing one as more "better/successful" than the other)? As the two authors point out through Flores et al. (2015), “idealized monolingualism allows schooling systems to reify white monolingualism as an ideal [...]” (136).
Reading “Perfect or Mocha: Language Policing and Pathologization” has left me feeling refreshed (what I’ve been thinking has been jumping off the pages!) but also with many questions and a sense of frustration.