ELT and ‘the spirit of the times’

7/28/2019 ELT and ‘the spirit of the times’

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/elt-and-the-spirit-of-the-times 1/7

p o i n t a n d c o u n t e r p o i n t

E LT and ‘the spirit of the times’

Alan Waters

In recent years, ELT professional discourse has been increasingly characterized bythe active promotion of a number of ideas which lack popular appeal. It is argued that one reason for this trend is the influence of the prevailing intellectual ideologyin the professionally-dominant Anglophone West—one of ‘political correctness’(PC). The nature of the PC concept is outlined and the way in which it can be seen

to have influenced ELT explained. It is further argued that, despite a healthyconcern with opposing the abuse of power, the PC-based E LT stance is itself proneto the very same problem, and several representative examples of the unbalanced and distorted views that result are described. It is hoped the analysis provided will help to increase understanding of the ideological basis for trends in ELT , and thereby also improve critical evaluation of them.

‘It’s alright to have a conflict model as long as we don’t conflict withDr Kirk.’ m a l c o l m b r a d b u r y The History Man

Introduction For some time now, a number of concepts have come to occupy anincreasingly prominent place in ELT professional discourse, but which, forthe most part, have had only sparse grass-roots take-up. The driving forcebehindtheir promotion therefore seems to have less to do with a concern forpractical relevance and more with other, rather different factors. Swan hintsat such a possibility, speculating that the support within much of appliedlinguistics for ‘strong’ task-based instruction (TBI)—in which ‘tasks areboth necessary and sufficient for learning’ (Ellis 2003: 28)—reflectsa distaste ‘for control, whether personal or linguistic’, an attitude ‘perhapspartly socio-political in origin’ (Swan 2005: 288). Likewise, Ur (2006: 2)asks‘Whyis TBI promotedin the literature?’ andconjectures that part of the

answer may be because it is seen to be in keeping with ‘the spirit of thetimes’. In other words, it is possible to see ideological considerations of various kinds as playing an important role in the matter.

The contention of this paper is that an important ‘Zeitgeist’ of this kind isindeed involved in much of modern-day ELT, and that this needs to berecognized as a major factor in accounting for the promotion of a variety of recent policies and practices. In what follows, thus, the nature of thisinfluence is outlined, and its impact on ELT critically evaluated.

Political correctness Any attempt to identify ideological influence in ELT must take into accountthe way that its professional discourse is characteristically dominated by the

ELT Journal Volume 61/4 October 2007; doi:10.1093/elt/ccm053 353ªª The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.



voice of the native-speaker. It is therefore ideology prevailing in thissector—the Anglophone West—which will tendto have greatest potential toshape professional norms. For some time now, the main influence of thiskind has been that of ‘political correctness’ (PC). As Browne (2006) states,PC ‘has grown in influence over the last few decades to the extent that it hasnow become one of the most dominant features of public discourse . . .

across the Western—and particularly the Anglophone—world’ (p. 1) and is

‘the dominant ideology of the West’ (p. 32).PC is oftenthoughtof in terms of itsbetter-known, everydaymanifestations,such as a concern for ‘gender-free’ language, and so on. However, to beproperly understood, its main underlying theoretical premises need to beclarified. As Browne (ibid.: 29) explains, the basic tenet of PC, derived by‘transferring Marxist techniques from economic to cultural and socialissues’, is a belief that social structures should be interpreted in politicalterms. Thus, the fact that societies consist of various kinds of asymmetricalpower relations is seen to occur because those with greater amounts of power oppress those with less of it (ibid.: 10ff).

In the interests of social justice, PC regards it as essential to support thecause ofthose in society who are perceived to be less powerful, and to opposethe more powerful party. In this way, the cause of, for example, the ordinarycitizen is championed over that of government or ‘big business’, of womenover men, of children over adults, and so on (ibid.: 23). To effect the socialchanges perceived to be necessary, ‘positive discrimination’ is advocated, i.e.policies and practices which attempt to reduce the power of the ‘oppressor’andincrease therightsofthe‘victim’, by redesigningor removing altogetherthe social structures that are seen as discriminatory (ibid.: 69ff.).

The influence of PCon ELT

There are a number of ways in which this ideology, either in its more formalacademic guise as ‘critical theory’, or more indirectly, in the form of a set of prevailing attitudes and habits of thought, can be seen to have exerteda strong influence on the development of thinking and practice in ELT forsome time now. Thus, nearly all the main critiques of ELT over the last 15years or so—such as Phillipson 1992; Holliday 1994; Canagarajah 1999;Jenkins 2000; and Holliday 2005—have used a conceptual frameworkwhich has much in common with the precepts of PC. This is because all of these items are based on the view that ELT comprises a number of fundamentally asymmetrical—and thus inequitable—power relations, and

that policies and approaches should be developed to remedy the injusticeswhich they are perceived to cause.

For example, from this perspective, it has been argued that a ‘criticalpedagogy’ should be developed, in order to enable teachers and learners tobecome aware of and resist the hegemonic influences associated withlearning English; likewise, the importance of developing a local, context-sensitive ‘appropriate methodology’ has been advocated, as a means of countering ‘methodological imperialism’; new models of English, it hasbeen proposed, based on ‘non-native speaker’ norms, such as English as anInternational Language, should supplant standard, ‘native speaker’-oriented ones, for both teaching and evaluation purposes; and so on.

354 Alan Waters



Perhaps less obviously than in terms of the main areas of concern of each of the titles listed above, the PC perspective can also be seen as lying behindother, well-established ELT trends as well, all of them similarly shaped bya view of the ‘structure’ in question comprising an asymmetricaldistribution of power relations, and therefore being seen as in need of reconfiguration along more‘balanced’ lines. Thus, thisviewcan be regardedas having lent support to the construction of teachers as authority figures

and the concomitant perceived need to ‘democratize’ EFL teaching methodsvia the adoption of a ‘learner-centred approach’ (see, for example, Nunan1999.) Similarly, it can be seen as having contributed to the anti-textbookstance in ELT (see, for example, Littlejohn 1992), by encouraging the viewthatauthors and publishers are in a potentially exploitative relationshipwithteachers and learners. Likewise, it seems reasonable to assume that some of the support for teacher-led enquiry in ELT, for example, action research andexploratory practice (Allwright 2003), has resulted from a PC-inspired viewof academic researchas being in a hegemonic relationship with practitionerknowledge. PC can also be seen as having fuelled the construction of native

speakers (NS) as having greater power than non-native speakers (NNS),andtherefore automatically engaged in the exercise of hegemony over them(Holliday 2005), leading to, for instance, calls for alternative nomenclature(see, for example, Jenkins op. cit.) as a part of trying to solve this problem.

In short, in these and other ways, the conceptual framework underlying PCcanbe seen as having exerted a strong influenceon thetheoretical landscapeof ELT for some time now. Identifying this factor helps to explain why suchideas continue to be extensively promoted in the professional discourse eventhoughmost ofthem have failedto achieve widespreadpopularity. This said,it is also important to recognize that, despite their limited direct impact on

the field at large, PC-based ELT ideas have nevertheless had an importantand beneficial indirect influence (like PC itself in relation to wider socialissues), through helping to draw attention to potential abuses of powerwithin ELT, such as those associated with NSs vs. NNSs, teachers vs.learners, ‘global’ vs. local methodologies, and so on. Equally, though, the PCstance can be regarded as fundamentally flawed, because, while it is bynature a mainly Anglophone, Western, and ideological perspective, itattempts to construct the ELT world as a whole so that it conforms to its ownpreconceived conceptual template, thereby imposing a powerful hegemonyof its own. The remainder of this paper considers some of the main ways in

which this occurs.

Limitations of the PCperspectiveStructure andteacher control

Because the PC view ‘seeks to redistribute power from the powerful to thepowerless’ (Browne op. cit.: 9), the presence of structure in social relationstends to be associated with negative forms of social control. Nunan (op. cit.)appears to apply this kind of perspective to ELT, when discussing ‘high-structure versus low-structure teaching’, as follows:

High-structure teaching situations are those in which the teacher is verymuch in control of the instructional process. In these situations, learnershave relatively little power or control over either the content or process of

learning. Low-structure situations, on the other hand, provide learnerswith numerous options and a great deal of autonomy (p. 75).

ELT and ‘the spirit of the times’ 355



In other words, it is assumed that a direct relationship exists betweenamount of structure and amount of teacher control, and that for learning tobe maximized, structure (and thus control) should be minimized. AsNunan also says: ‘in contemporary classrooms, while . . . high-structuretasks are not eschewed, much more time will need to be devoted to low-structure tasks’ (ibid.: 74).

However, such a perspective contrasts markedly with that in, for example,Stevick 1982, where the relationship between structure and learning is seenin more complex terms, as follows:

In the long run, the quantity of your students’ learning will depend on thequality of the attention that they give to it. The quality of their attentionwill depend, in turn, on the degree to which they are able and willing tothrow themselves into what is going on. And they will throw themselvesin only to the extent that they feel secureindoing so. Inthis respect they’resomething like a turtle, which moves ahead on its own power only whenit’s willing to stick its neck out a little (p. 5).

Here, the starting point for addressing the issue of what form of classroomorganization is likely to be most conducive to learning is viewed in terms of the psychological disposition of the typical learner (and can thus be seen asa more truly ‘learner-centred’ stance). At the centre of this picture isa recognition of the need to adequately address the learner’s feelings of security. Stevick goes on to explain the basic classroom approach which hesees as resulting from this view of learning needs:

Work out some basic techniques, and establish a simple, clear routine for using them. You don’t have to be inflexible either in the routine or in thetechniques themselves. The important thing, though, is to keep fromimprovising too much—from looking as though you are making up yourmethod as you go along. When the students sense that they are in firmhands, they can relax and turn their full attention to the task before them.If ‘control’ means establishing the rules for an activity and providingoptions among which students may choose, then you can maintaincomplete control in your classroom even while you allow your students toexercise a great deal of initiative (ibid.: 7—emphasis in original).

From this perspective, in other words, the control provided by a structuredteaching approach, far from being seen as antithetical to learning, is viewed

as a primary means of facilitating it. It is the presence of a set of predictableroutines that provides learners with the level of security necessary toencourage them, like the turtle, to ‘stick their necks out’. Conversely,insufficient structure of this kind can be seen as harmful to learning, since,as Stevick also points out:

If they [i.e. the learners] are seldom sure what kind of activity is comingnext, they will have to divert a large part of their energy to figuring outwhat to try to do and when to try to do it (ibid.: 7—my interpolation).

It is important to note, however, that, the structure provided needs to be of a kind that allows for ‘frequent and significant ‘‘initiative’’ within clear anddependable ‘‘control’’ (ibid.: 8), i.e. one that is not too tightly drawn. Toclarify this aspect, Stevick likens theoptimum level of structure to that of the

356 Alan Waters



‘jungle gym’ (climbing frame), in which ‘lengths of steel pipe are joinedtogether at right angles to make a rigid three-dimensional space withinwhich children can climb about as they wish’ (p. 7–8).

The value for classroom learning of an intermediate level of structure is alsosupported extensively by theorizing and research elsewhere in the literature(see, for example, Hutchinson and Hutchinson 1996). The PC-influencedstance is thus unbalanced, more the product of ideology than a consideredappreciation of learners’ full range of needs. It erroneously views thepresence of a significant degree of structure in the classroom as deleteriousto learning, and vice-versa. This view appears to be the basis of theopposition to ‘control’ which characterizes some of the support for strongTBI, as noted in Swan op. cit., as well as many of the other ELT trendsaligned with the PC perspective.

Evidence and proof As Browne (ibid.: Chapters 2 and 6) also points out, another (and related)way in which thePC perspective tends to contradict its avowed opposition to

hegemonic practices occurs as a result of its assuming that, since the causesit champions are seen to be concerned with attempting to achieve greatersocial justice, normal standards of proof and veridicality are notrequired. Asa consequence, in such instances, instead of using empirical evidence tosupport claims, thus enabling them to be challenged, the PC approachfrequently uses ad hominem argumentation and stereotyping as attemptedsubstitutes, making its stance a pro-control one.

For example, as already mentioned, the PC point of view has been used inELT to support the construction of the NS as exercising an unhealthy levelof hegemony over the NNS. Thus, Holliday 2005 describes a TESOL

conference presentation explaining the culture of an East Asian country,attended by what were assumed to be ‘English-speaking Western teachers’(i.e. NSs). The main stages in the event are characterized as follows:

Step 1: See an individual’s behaviour as mostlyexplainable by membershipof a foreign national culture . . .

Step 2: Describe the foreign national culture as a generalized Other, whosemain characteristic is difference to Self . . .

Step 3: Find the details of this difference.Step 4: Explain all behaviour in terms of this difference . . .

Step 5: Reify the stereotype(ibid.: 25–6).

In other words, the participants in the session were assumed to have used itto construct a racial stereotype of the members of the culture in question.However, despite the very negative nature of this interpretation, noempirical evidence (for example, interview or questionnaire data) isprovided to support it. The analysis appears to be based entirely on theauthor’s own presuppositions. Yet it is equally possible for an alternative,more positive motivation to be ascribed to the participants, for example:

Step 1: I am working in a culture which is unfamiliar to me. I feel it mighthelp if I got some basic information about it, in order to begin to getto know it better.




Step 2: In the light of this knowledge, what can I do (i) to limit culturallyinappropriate behaviour on my part, and (ii) improve my ability tounderstand/accept behaviour on the part of locals?

Step3: In the longer-term, how can I use this information to give me a basisforbuildingup a better general picture of howexpatriates andlocalscan live and work together as well as possible, and to help meperceive the individual person behind the cultural ‘mask’?

However, because a PC-based perspective is being applied, an ad hominemargument seems to have been regarded as sufficient. Since the participantswere NSs, in other words, it appears to be assumed that they must have hadthe motivations specified. It should also be noted that this process of ascription involves exactly the same kind of negative stereotyping it wasclaimed the participants in the presentation were using.

Oppressors andvictims

The way in which such essentializing practices are used by PC in theexercise of its own hegemony can also be illustrated by a third example, asfollows. PC, as already mentioned, characteristically sees the world as being

made up of ‘oppressors’ and ‘victims’. Individuals are therefore regarded asbelonging wholesale to one category or the other. Thus, just as in theprevious example, where NSs were constructed as uniformly hegemonic intheir attitudes towards NNSs, so the PC-based stance tends to constructNNSs in the opposite terms, forming them into a ‘victim’ class about whomgeneralizations are just as freely made. This can be seen as theunacknowledged ideological basis for the promotion of substitutes for‘standard’ (i.e. NS) varieties of English, such as English as an InternationalLanguage (EIL) (see, for example, Jenkins op. cit.). In other words, fromsuch a perspective, it is assumed that a requirement to learn a ‘standard’

variety of English automatically disadvantages and/or disempowers allNNSs, and that it is therefore more appropriate for them to learn another,‘non-standard’ variety instead, such as EIL.

However, this is to adopt the same reductionist stance that was applied to‘oppressors’ in the example just discussed, but this time with reference to‘victims’. As Kuo 2006 points out, the picture of learner needs presented byproponents of EIL is restricted to a basic, instrumental one only, and fails toadequately take into account ‘a language’s social functions, such as toproject self-image, to establish self-identity, and to develop personal voice’(ibid.: 215). When factors of the latter kind are also considered, however, it

may well be the case that, for a variety of reasons, learners will prefer to learnon the basis of a NS model.

The PC-based ELT perspective in these matters therefore seeks to controlperceptions by the use of a top-down, theory-driven approach, wherebyindividual dispositions are discounted in preference for crude stereotypes.As a result, it constructs both those it opposes and those it purports tosupport in a distorted way. It exaggerates the extent to which both NSsactually exercise hegemony over NNSs, and the extent to which they areperceived by NNSs to do so. Above all, despite its avowed aims to thecontrary, it attempts to impose an ideological power-structure of its own oneveryday realties as perceived by most ordinary ELT practitioners.

358 Alan Waters



Conclusion This article began by pointing out that certain ideas are extensively‘propagandized’ in ELT, regardless of their lack of popularity. It was arguedthat this tendency cannot be fully understood in rational terms. Rather, toaccount for it more adequately, the influence of the ‘spirit of the times’—i.e.of PC, the main intellectual ideology of the day in the (professionally-dominant) Anglophone West—also needs to be considered.

The way in which PC constructs social relations was seen to be mirrored inmuch of the main recent professional critique of ELT and the relatedadvocacy of a number of professional trends. While acknowledging themain benefit of the PC-based ELT perspective—the introduction of a welcome concern for reducing or avoiding abuse in terms of the ‘political’structures which are central to ELT—thiswasfollowed,inturn,byacounter-critique, which explored the way in which the same stance creates its own,alternative hegemony, and, as a consequence, promotes a number of unbalanced and distorted views.

It is hoped that this analysis will help to clarify the way in which a political

dimension can be seen to underlie many current and widely-promoted ELTtrends. It is also hoped that it will encourage a more critical attitude towardsthe potential abuse of power which conceptualisation of thiskind—howeverwell-intentioned—can result in.

Revised version received September 2006

References

Allwright, D. 2003. ‘Exploratory practice: rethinkingpractitioner research in language teaching’.Language Teaching Research 7/2: 113.

Browne, A. 2006. The Retreat of Reason. London:Civitas.Canagarajah, A. S. 1999. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching . Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Ellis, R. 2003. Task-based Language Learning and Teaching . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Holliday, A. 1994. Appropriate Methodology and Social Context . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Holliday, A. 2005. The Struggle to Teach English as anInternational Language . Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Hutchinson, T. and E. G. Hutchinson. 1996. ‘Thetextbook as agent of change’ in T. Hedge andN. Whitney (eds.). Power, Pedagogy, and Practice .Oxford: Oxford University Press, 307–23.Jenkins, J. 2000. The Phonology of English as anInternational Language: New Models, New Norms, New Goals . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kuo, I.-C. 2006. ‘Addressing the issue of teachingEnglishas a lingua franca’.E LT Journal 60/3: 213–21.Littlejohn, A. 1992. ‘Why are English languageteaching materials the way they are?’ UnpublishedPhD thesis, Lancaster University.

Nunan, D. 1999. Second Language Teaching and Learning . Boston: MA: Heinle & Heinle.Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism . Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Stevick, E. W. 1982. Teaching and Learning Languages .Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Swan, M. 2005. ‘Legislation by hypothesis: the caseof task-based instruction’. Applied Linguistics 26/3:376–401.Ur, P. 2006. ‘A different ball game’. Paper presentedat the 40th Annual IATEFL Conference, Harrogate,England.

The author

Alan Waters is a Senior Lecturer in the Department

of Linguistics and English Language, LancasterUniversity, England. He has taught EFL in SierraLeone, Kuwait, and the UK and trained teachers inThailand, the UK, Hong Kong, and several otherparts of the world. He has published a number of books and articles on a range of ELT topics. His mainresearch interests are in teacher learning andcurriculum innovation.Email: [email protected]


Documents

ELT and ‘the spirit of the times’