Delpit: The Silenced Dialogue

As I was reading Delpit, I came to the section on the five aspects of power. The fifth one is "Those with the power are frequently least aware of - or least willing to acknowledge - its existence. Those with the least power are often most aware of its existence." I immediately thought of the "luxury of oblivion" in Johnson's book.

This connection is important because it reduces the deniability of the idea, which is what those people who have the power would want to be able to do so as to go on being oblivious and remove themselves from the uncomfortable ideas that they participate in the culture of power and even that they themselves are part of the dominant, powerful, and therefore oppressive culture. Delpit uses a great example when she refers back to the vignettes that open the chapter. That the white people would refer to research to validate their own arguments and would not accept personal experience as valid support from the person of color's side of the argument. That was a cultural code that they would access to "win the argument" but in effect they were invalidating the other person completely and silencing them.

In Johnson, the oblivion is part of denial altogether. In Delpit, this lack of awareness leads to communication breakdowns where by indirect communications are meant to deemphasize power between teachers and students (or colleagues or anyone) instead contributes to the student's confusion and alienation by the teacher who is using codes (whether they realize it or not). Therefore, the power is not actually being reduced at all, only veiled (as the power is there whether or not we admit it) and the student is never taught the rules that they are being subjected to. By not being explicit in teaching and in communication, teachers are neglecting to help students succeed in a world where there is a culture of power.

I am glad that Delpit explains that teaching the cultural codes and being explicit in language teaching of the culture of power does not mean negating the other, but that teachers need to do both - teach the culture of power and be explicit enough to also point to the beauty and validity and value of other cultures and languages. By this I think she is saying that we need not admit to the culture of power in a way that means we are hanging our heads in shame but in a way that says it is true that this exists, but it is only one section of a rich and varied quilt of colors and styles that we can draw from and examine and discuss. In this way we elevate the conversation and our society to a new level.