Dialogicality and Racialized Discourse in TESOL Recruitment

Abstract

The investigation and unmasking of racial inequality have been one of the cornerstones of the critical turn in TESOL, so much so that a significant body of literature on the topic now exists. Yet, there is often a lack of reflection on the fact that discourse surrounding contentious social issues like race is inherently dialogical in that it consists of constant interaction between different voices (heteroglossia) and ideologies (polyphony). This paper presents the findings of a study focussing on the dialogicality of discourse surrounding the recruitment of non-local teachers of English in Thailand. This research, framed by the existence of significant inequalities between teachers of different nationalities and ethnic backgrounds in the Thai educational system, examined the role race played in interactions in a Facebook group for non-local teachers of English seeking employment in Thailand. The analysis focussed on identifying points of struggle, salient topics around which particularly intensive concentrations of dialogicality could be found. Two are presented in this paper, the struggle for discursive space to debate racial inequality and the struggle over the assignment of victimhood and perpetratorhood. I conclude by arguing for more attention to be paid to how global inequalities in TESOL are debated and challenged locally.

“Why Should I Not Speak My Own Language (Chinese) in Public in America?”: Linguistic Racism, Symbolic Violence, and Resistance

“…For example, two decades ago, Kubota (2002) pinpointed that institutionalized racism manifests itself in everyday practices through teaching materials, pedagogical practices, and school curricula. Very recent scholarship similarly notes racialized discursive practice in TESOL recruitment (Savski, 2021) and TESOL lecturers' identity negotiation and struggle in the context of racial discrimination (Louber, 2021). As one kind of racism, linguistic racism has permeated every corner of our society and shaped social relations, interpersonal discourses, and institutional structures.…”