(Re)production of symbolic boundaries between native and non-native teachers in the TESOL profession

Abstract

Although various attempts to confront non-native teachers of English (NNESTs) marginalisation in the language teaching profession have taken place over the past few years, the English language teaching (ELT) domain clearly demonstrates quite the opposite; remaining structured and articulated by boundaries that are shaped by language ideologies, it marks an exclusion of non-native English teachers from participating in the field of foreign language teaching on equal terms with native English-speaking teachers (NESTs). Using a Bourdieusian lens (Bourdieu and Passeron in Reproduction in education, society and culture, Sage, London, 1990; Bourdieu in Language and symbolic power, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1991), this paper examines the way symbolic violence is exercised through exclusionary and discriminatory practices that arbitrarily impose the culture of a dominant group and result in the production and reproduction of symbolic boundaries between native and non-native teachers of English. In doing so, it calls for greater awareness among language educators of the power dynamics behind the simplistic ‘native’/’non-native’ dichotomies. Since nothing has been done so far to reconcile the two, the author believes that a continuous perception of NESTs and NNESTs as two different professional classes might serve the interest of those who wish to maintain such polarisation.

Research on “native” and “non-native” English-speaking teachers: Past developments, current status, and future directions

“…The early research adopted a similar stance and advocated for collaboration between NESTs and NNESTs to promote a collegial environment of mutual support, maximize individual professional strengths, and create an escape from the dichotomous orientation (Boecher, 2005; de Oliveira & Richardson, 2004). However, when collaboration and collaborative practices revolve around (non)nativeness as a guiding principle and operate in a complementary fashion (Ma, 2012b), it may inadvertently lead to (re)production of the symbolic boundaries between NESTs and NNESTs (Wright, 2022), the essentialization of group identities, the reification of professional boundaries (Reis, 2012; Sutherland, 2012), and, consequently, the perpetuation of the stereotypical division of labor.…”