Being a conduit and culprit of white language supremacy: a duo autohistoria-teoría

Abstract

In this manuscript, two normalistas-teachers, who are Women of Color in the United States, reflected on our experiences as educators. In a chronological narrative structure, we each told stories related to our experiences with languages and literacy. Using Anzaldúa’s autohistoria-teoría—a decolonial research methodology—we constructed situated knowledge based on our personal reflections of our experiences. More specifically, we uncovered ways we have been conduits of white language supremacy, interrogated how white language supremacy has impacted our teaching, and revealed our growth in our stance towards linguistic justice. Through the lens of raciolinguistics, we reveal our own victimization, internalized racist linguicism, and subsequent perpetuation of linguistic imperialism. Because of our professional successes as a result of English proficiency, we bought into the myth that acquiring Standard American English was necessary to ensure the success of students with racialized identities and failed to fully value language plurality. At this point in our professional journeys, however, we are committed to work characterized by 1) a recognition of the ways language and race are inextricably entwined, 2) evidenced appreciation for non-Western language varieties, 3) use of translanguaging as resistance, 4) culturally sustaining writing instruction (Woodard, Vaughan, & Machado, 2017), and 5) multimodal communication practices. Our manuscript is important because it models the kind of vulnerability, theorization, and critical reflection necessary for scholars whose work aims for decoloniality. It represents our commitment to decolonization of the self.

Translingual Disciplinary Literacies: Equitable Language Environments to Support Literacy Engagement

“…Thus, to not further deepen assumptions of a hierarchy of registers (academic and colloquial) or a privileged named language (English), our critical perspective undergirds our purposeful use of the construct disciplinary literacies, which does not imply a specific language, such as English, or a hierarchical classification of languages or dialects. Nevertheless, we recognize that both literacy teachers and researchers, ourselves included, are socialized to discuss school-related language without questioning its invisible reference to English, and often a register of English attributed to middle-class white people (Caldera & Babino, 2020). Thus, due to common socialization, teachers (and researchers) and their actions are susceptible to the same invisible racism that is integrated into our society and, consequently, are as likely as anyone else to adopt seemingly innocent racist views of languages and speakers of those languages (Starck, Riddle, Sinclair, & Warikoo, 2020).…”