Developing an Understanding

This section is dedicated to developing an understanding of how fundamentalist rhetoric works in society, particularly within cross-racial communication. If fundamentalist rhetoric assumes that one side holds 100% of the truth, then through that logic, White Supremacists see themselves as having the “idealized” language, which is what we call, "Standardized English." The way this works is through a model that I have conceptualized, a cycle of shoulds. This cycle of shoulds explains how this value of Whiteness is continuously reinforced throughout society, which is exactly why I chose a classroom example. More on this later, but for now, let’s take a peek at the basics of the model.

Why Fundamentalist Rhetoric Works so Effectively: A Cycle of "Shoulds"

I created this cycle after noticing a pattern: a positive feedback loop. The cycle of shoulds is where concept A creates concept B, concept B creates concept C, concept C creates concept D, and concept D brings us full circle and reinforces the belief/concept A. This feedback loop is riddled with confirmation bias, prejudice, unconscious biases, and undervaluing others.

Within the model, A is the belief that is continuously reinforced through B, C, and D.

B is a method of measuring this belief, being able to determine who fits into this category and who doesn’t.
C is the way in which this belief is enforced or instilled into a person, (this is where an abuse of power and rhetoric can occur.)
D is where we see the effects of this belief, which turns into a positive feedback loop and reinforces the integrity that the illusion of this belief is real.

Concept A

Concept D

Concept B

Concept C

our illusions are our rules for life: values, beliefs, principles, our reality, our version of success, etc.

I call these "illusions" because in life there is no way for us to know absolute answers or truths. There is no tangible, all-knowing, itinerary for how we should live or think about our lives, so instead, we use these illusions as our guides. This is also where things can get a little complicated as social civilians: because we forget that everyone lives by their own illusions -- and more importantly, we need to realize that just because someone else's illusions are different from ours, it doesn't mean they are wrong. It’s okay to be different, to think differently. It’s okay to not live your life within the confines of society’s socially constructed mindsets or between binary ways of thinking. You don't have to live in that box, it's merely an illusion.

However, what strong fundamentalist rhetoric used by an individual does, is say that: their personal set of illusions are the universal fundamental truths, and if their illusions are the fundamental truth -- then everything else that they do not value is wrong, or not worthy of being valued. When we develop this binary between right and wrong, we are hindering our opportunities to understand and connect with one another on a deeper level of understanding. But in society, we almost always attribute being wrong as a flaw, which is why we rarely admit when we are. When we don’t see all sides of a truth, the side that people other than ourselves can expand our perspective with, then we remained closed off to accepting others into our world. Without challenging ourselves, we tend to lose our accountability, and when we lose accountability, it becomes easier to believe that we are always the only one who is right.

Stating our illusions as truth is the symptom of fundamentalist rhetoric, and in a country that is essentially swimming in fundamentalist rhetoric, this means we turn on the news and see that the President can effortlessly misinform the American people caused by their own biases, the media can twist and manipulate news into fake news stating opinion as fact, but most importantly, this creates standards for what are the “right” ways to live.

This is how race was socially constructed, people created an illusion to categorize people into respective groups based on the perceived intersectionalities of one’s external characteristics and/or culture, using the belief of racism to give life to this new illusion, as, “race is the child of racism, not its father” - Ta-Nehisi Coates. To ensure we are on the same page, for these purposes I am defining racism as, the belief that there are defining characteristics that constitute one person as either inferior or superior to another person, particularly as a means to determine where an individual belongs in the social hierarchical chain of being. When these people are constituted inferior, they degrade into "subhuman" status in the eyes of the believer, which in turn makes them more prone to being undervalued, criminalized, and dehumanized. By seeing them as less than, so to speak, it becomes much easier to commit acts of stereotyping, objectification, and discrimination against them. These “wrong” people include people of color, drug users, criminals, impoverished communities, -- essentially anything that breaks the mainstream mold of what a "typical American," should be.

Classroom Example:

Now that we have a basic foundation, let’s go back to our classroom example and take a look at how this occurs. Imagine a student: a non-White student that uses another language at home or with peers that is not Standardized English.

Concept A

Whiteness is valued in society.

A method of measuring Whiteness, through Standard English.

Concept D

Concept B

The student sees them self as inferior for not assimilating into Whiteness.

A Cycle of Shoulds in an American Classroom

Concept C

The ttudent is corrected and regulated to talk in Standard English because it’s “better”

Explanations of each concept:

A is a great example of what kind of role the Silent Majority plays into all of this as well, it's more or less a general assumption of what the majority of Americans believe and value based on the expression of regulations and policies, government programs, spending allocations, popular votes, and public opinion. Being able to observe America as it is objectively, I would say it would be easier to explain the ways Whiteness isn’t valued in America than to explain all of the ways it is. If you are White, such as myself, then you also will have a hard time seeing it, even though it is right in front of you. You have to be able to open yourself up to see it, and it won’t be easy. Whiteness culture would include things such as: perfectionism, sense of urgency, defensiveness, quantity over quality, worship of the written word, only one right way, paternalism, either/or thinking, power hoarding, fear of open conflict, individualism, and unearned privilege. A is essentially the mainstream fundamentalist rhetoric of American society, whether we want to admit it or not, this value of Whiteness is how we have socially constructed a racial hierarchy that privileges White people.

B is the method in which Whiteness is measured, in this case, this is through "Standard English" or "Academic English." This is also where prejudice and unconscious biases can occur, because the teacher essentially evaluates the student’s work -- correcting any form of writing that is not in Standardized English. This “universal” academic language undervalues other culture's varying ways of communicating, something that is connected to a student's sense of self. By valuing this one way of speaking, it assumes that all other ways are inferior, which the student internalizes as them or their culture being inferior or “wrong.” Through this logic, Standardized English exemplifies what America’s values are, and that is Whiteness speaking.

The opposite approach to this would be to implement code-meshing and code-switching in tandem, in which the student is able to integrate both languages when developing their understanding. I understood this better when I read, “Other People’s English,” by Vershawn Ashanti Young, where he summarizes this process as the ability for non-White students to use both, "Code-meshing would be used, if I understand Elbow's logic, to help students blend African American rhetorical strategies, while code-switching would help them edit out African American grammatical features that make conservative readers nervous." Looking at this with the cycle of shoulds helps us understand that Standardized English, “may be constructed as another societal expectation that is perpetually thrust upon Blacks to prove themselves when communicating, particularly in the mainstream and/or with non-Blacks." This is because our language is inherently tied to our identities, the way we talk and communicate with language is an expression of our own culture’s mindsets and values, and so when this value of language (and identity) is standardized, it creates the narrative that when you don’t meet this standard: you are less than, wrong, and/or uneducated. Code-meshing and code-switching simply argue for non-White students to be able to have a safe space to integrate the way they see the world (their culture) with the new understandings they learn in schools.

Between C and D is where abuse of rhetoric and power can occur, and what makes this especially powerful is the ability that is able to transmit in today's age. With the internet and social media, fake news has all the fuel it needs to spread throughout social media platforms like wildfire. Examples would include, but not be limited to: Trump tweeting without factual grounds, people disowning their friendships and family members who don't share their illusions, and radical propaganda (that threatens to cut the thread of humanity that connects us all).

C During this correction process, the teacher misconceives appropriateness for rightness, as they assume that the student does not know the concept because they aren’t properly using Standardized English. This is where the error may occur because they may in fact know the concept, but they just aren’t adept at communicating through a Standard English, likely one they don't use often. For example, using Black Vernacular English Rules, we know that “toof” is actually “correct” or interchangeable with the Standard English of “tooth.” However, a teacher unaware of these grammatical rules of Black Vernacular English, assumes that the student is talking about something else other than a tooth, or misspelled the word and corrects them without explanation of why. This reminds me of a quote by Martin Luther King Jr., “If a barrier exists because of the language used by the children in this case, it exists not because the teachers and students cannot understand each other, but because in the process of attempting to teach the students how to speak Standard English the students are made somehow to feel inferior and are thereby turned off from the learning process.” During this correction of their home language, they don’t understand why they can’t use the language they know without being penalized, which brings us to point D.

D is where the student internalizes the corrections of their undervalued language as a needed correction of themselves, where they believe they need to assimilate to be “right.” When this happens, this is essentially telling the student, if you don't assimilate you won't succeed, because we don't share the same values as you. This is where internalized racism may be produced, where the student feels that is wrong to love and value what they do about themselves, this can be seen here, “that code-switching for African Americans is deeply connected to race and racial self-understanding, and even if it’s deployed as a scientific study in educational settings, code-switching still produces emotional and racial effects.” After this internalization, this is where the student believes the fundamentalist rhetoric of Standardized English being "best," and so both the teacher and student in this scenario have just been reinforced with the power of White Supremacy saying White is right. In short terms, this is where discrimination, confirmation biases, and racism are all allowed in both the student and the teacher’s minds.

This is so important because these are things that a White student would never understand or even have to consider, but it's important that we are aware of how our fundamental illusions play and mix with other's illusions as we live in a multi-cultural and multi-racial society. I truly believe that as a people, our goal is to be able to achieve a respectful common ground. I think that we do want to be connected, but we don't always accept things that don't feel familiar or confirm what we already "know." We want to find a common ground where everyone in America feels that they have an opportunity to be able to live by their own set of illusions; to be valued and accepted.

From the time we enroll in Pre-school, we begin the process of becoming institutionalized. We see the workings of society in the classroom, we see how power dynamics work as the teacher is the person in power, students are working together in a community setting and practicing collaboration as well as being exposed to the individualistic culture that teaches us to be X, Y, and Z so that we may be successful in society. When we go to school, we also enter the societal chain of being, because the classroom is the birthplace of normalizing American culture. We begin to learn about society through making friends, interacting with others, conflict with others, etc., and so it’s vital that the classroom acts as a safe space for everyone to build confidence in their efficacy, rather than reminding them of how different they are from the standard American.

Not to mention, that the mainstream way of thinking goes something like: more education = more financial success; and with more financial success comes more power. When the education system conceives persons with jobs of power, such as lawyers, doctors, researchers, and politicians -- it puts them in the position to make judgment calls on the rest of our behalf. We rely on these people as sources of credibility and knowing the “right” ways of thinking, but what if they are closed off from learning what you value? Then you’re being misrepresented, misunderstood, and undervalued because these people with power have the means to spread their ideas of fundamentalist rhetoric, and they aren’t concerned about making room for your values if they differ.

Comparing, Contrasting, and Summarizing the Support and Opposition of Cross-Racial Communication

First, I also want to acknowledge the difference between cross-cultural communication and cross-racial communication, which is the difference between race and culture. Culture is how you perceive your “norms,” it basically acts as your lens in which you see the world, this is how you make sense of your worldview. Whereas, race is a socio-political construct, based on the perceived intersectionalities and complexities of one’s ethnicities and nationalities. The reason I point this out is because “race” is not a real thing; it is only given life by the expansive social belief that it does exist. Remember the quote, “race is the child of racism, not the father,” this is because racism creates a hierarchy, it's the first step to not seeing one another as equals, and race is a social illusion of a racial caste system that we allocate ourselves in.

This is also why fundamentalist rhetoric works so efficiently, this creates boxes to sort who belongs where, while also creating out-group biases and stereotypes that inherently separate us from one another from the gecko. This is why when we see or talk with people who are different from us we fall into these cycles of reinforcing our own beliefs while forgetting it's okay, and actually beautiful to have people who are different from us. These differences are what help us grow, understand, and connect with one another, it’s how we share our humanness, it's our gifts to one another.

Cross-racial communication is defined as recognizing, affirming, and valuing varying cultural perspectives and communications avoiding assimilation to common “culturally expected” communication practices. To many of our readers, we may think of this as somewhat of a commonly accepted practice within many institutions (academics, workplaces, social groups, etc.), yet there are two dividing stances on this notion in the United States. In this section of our lesson plan, we are going to compare, contrast, analyze, and summarize these conflicting sides, and attempt to debunk and understand what makes each group form the opinion and discern of their beliefs on this singularly complex subject matter. As we delve into what the opposing views on this ideology look like, we need to grasp an understanding of the fundamental principles behind both parties (remember, fundamental is different from fundamentalist, which we will reiterate again going forward).

Understanding Those In Favor of Cross-Racial Communication and Pluralist Rhetoric:

Cross-racial communication, while being its own separate ideology, coincides directly with the practice of pluralist rhetoric. Pluralism is defined as recognition and affirmation of a diverse group and wide variety of perspectives and values, alternative to a linear approach or method of ideology. When understanding this from a rhetorical perspective, we know that this is to address debate, conversation, conflict, or argumentation with an open mindset, and to immediately recognize the diversity and likelihood of your opposition to enter the discussion having a much different perspective to the situation. Those who welcome cross-racial communication and pluralist rhetoric are more likely to recognize that everyone comes to their own conclusions and beliefs can be attributed to their cultural upbringing. Language, rhetoric, values, and understanding of certain ideologies often form from one’s cultural background, which is something that those who welcome cross-racial communication are likely to recognize. In doing so, individuals in favor of pluralist rhetoric affirm and recognize cultural perspectives and language practices that do not conform to culturally expected, traditional forms of communication within the United States. What culturally expected forms of communication in the U.S. look like, are generalized ways of communication and learning that romanticize Whiteness and traditional American social norms. We will address what traditional, culturally expected norms in the U.S look like going forward.

Directly opposing the belief that society as a whole should recognize and welcome varying forms of communication, those who oppose cross-racial communication and pluralist rhetoric have a fundamentalist mindset that there should be one, centralized form of communication that everyone must learn and adapt to. This form of communication, learning, understanding, and rhetoric is rarely/never called into question in the United States, and is what is recognized as acceptable and socially normal to this group of people. This group typically has more of a fundamentalist perspective to conversation, debate, conflict, or argumentation, so as to have a more linear way of looking at things. This is typically a more conservative perspective to have, as these individuals are more likely to believe that in the U.S, those who do not possess the typically expected form of communication should be able to learn and adapt to it. With this mentality, these individuals tend to elect one group to possess the superior and celebrated form of communication, which often selects White Americans to be their preferred understanding of the proper way to communicate. To reiterate fundamentalism, it is defined as strict adherence to one’s basic principles. This coincides with fundamentalist rhetoric, being that those who apply this form of rhetoric tend to assume that one side holds 100% of the truth, and the other sides are 100% wrong, and to enter with a preconceived assumption of what the opposing party believes before communication transpires. This is a much more linear form of communication than to its opposition, pluralism.

Understanding Those Opposed to Cross-Racial Communication and Pluralist Rhetoric:

Summarizing the mindset of individuals who welcome pluralist rhetoric and cross-racial communication:

A willingness to attempt to understand, recognize, and affirm cultural perspectives and communication styles that do not conform to normalized forms of communication in the U.S

Applying pluralist rhetoric in conversation, rather than using a more linear approach

Electing that there should not be one, centralized form of communication, rather there should be a diverse, variety of language, rhetoric, learning, and communication that fluctuates depending on the individual, and should be affirmed and celebrated rather than expected to conform to the general cultural norm within the U.S.

Summarizing the mindset of individuals who oppose pluralist rhetoric and cross-racial communication:

Recognizing one, centralized form of communication as the cultural norm.

The belief that those who do not possess the understanding and knowledge of this culturally expected way of communication and learning should be able to conform and adapt to it.

A strict adherence to one’s principles, likely unwavering regardless of someone else’s differing experiences or background.

This is binary rhetoric; there is only this or that.