Language, power, land intergroup relations

Journal of Social Issues, Spring, 1999 by Scott A. Reid, Sik Hung Ng

Although language is not unique to humans, humans are well equipped genetically and culturally to use words for accomplishing a variety of social acts. This performative view of language, with its emphasis on language use rather than language comprehension or the symbolic aspects of language, was most clearly articulated in Austin's (1962) speech act theory, Halliday's (1976) functional model of language use, and Sacks, Schegloff, and Jeffersons's (1974) conversation analysis. All three sources, with the possible exception of Sacks et al., stemmed from disciplines outside the traditional domain of social psychology. But owing to its relevance to the study of social behaviour, language use has been assimilated, and continues to be assimilated in various guises, into social psychology and is now wedded to a broad range of topics (see, for example, reviews by Clark, 1985; Krauss & Chiu, 1998). The particular topic that concerns us here is the confluence of language, power, and intergroup relations.

Although social power has been (e.g., Cartwright, 1959) and continues to be (e.g., Ng, 1996) a neglected area of study in social psychology, research that has been done is highly applicable to real-world circumstances. The most notable example here is French and Raven's (1959) classic work on the bases of social power, and its recent extension (e.g., Raven, 1993). This work has been applied to hospital infection control, patient compliance with physicians' recommendations, and political confrontations (see Raven, 1993). To take an example of this approach, an armed robber might say, "Look, I have a loaded gun here, give me your money or I'll shoot." In terms of French and Raven's (1959) typology, the loaded gun provides the basis or resource of coercive power, the wielder of which is trying to turn it into social influence by uttering a threat. Another way of putting this is that the speaker is using language to reveal his or her coercive power base and to communicate his or her intention. Language, however, is not simply a medium for turning a power resource into influence. In the example above, depending on how the threat is worded and the tone of voice in which it is delivered, the influence attempt can have varying degrees of success (Raven, Schwarzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998). For this reason, language should not be seen solely as a passive conduit of power but as an active coplayer in the exercise of power.

Our discussion is built on two related premises. Firstly, the relationships between language and power are dynamic and multifaceted. In contrast, a common if not dominant research preoccupation in the social psychology of language is to map out the static/descriptive features of language style that characterize power, or indeed more often, powerlessness. Although this is generally a useful means of understanding, for example, persuasion and social influence processes as a reflection of a speaker's power, this approach becomes problematic when applied to intergroup relations. When we examine language in social context,(1) it becomes clear that power is not always given; on the contrary, it is the basis for argument, is created, re-created, subverted, and hidden using language. Theory and empirical research that retains a focus on language style, or more generally an adherence to a static view of power, does not provide us with theoretical facility for describing power change, a clearly dynamic process particularly relevant to intergroup relations and applications thereof.

Secondly, research on social issues most often represents the application of empirical findings or widely accepted theory to some form of desirable social change. However, in applying empirical findings, or theoretical knowledge in particular, there is a tendency for application to precede metatheoretical analysis. On the one hand, this is surprising given Lewin's emphasis on metatheory in his early research (e.g., Lewin, 1935, 1936), and on the other, it is of concern because the well-intentioned but misguided application of social psychology may produce undesirable results. Given the increasing application of social psychology, we need to be vigilant of the social implications that our research might have.

We thus pose our second premise as a question: Does empirical research and theory effectively function to justify the status quo, or might it contribute to social change? This question may appear particularly basic, but we will demonstrate that even research that purports to enable social change may unwittingly restate and function to cement control relationships. We argue that this situation arises from the application of individualistic and static views of power to intergroup relations. To redress this situation, we review research that illustrates the processes of power creation, change, and maintenance in intergroup power relations, and highlight the pivotal role of language.

We discuss the relationships of language to power under four headings. Firstly, language reflects power. This can be seen when the prestige of a language rises or falls with the power of its users. At the micro level of social interactions, a speaker's power or powerlessness is reflected in the content or style of language, and the style of language reflects upon group membership. As we have intimated, research on language style has focused attention upon features of language that characterize and describe low- but not high-power forms, and has done so without due recourse to the intergroup relationships that underpin style differences in the first instance. In doing so this work prioritizes the low- over the high-power form, thus obscuring processes that might enable the powerless to become powerful.