Primary and Secondary Discourses

discourses of Western culture in order to gain the necessary forms of cultural capital from which to be more dominant within certain fields of cultural

production (Bourdieu, 1993), especially those considered to possess more power within the context of globalization. The combination of fields of power in order to gain greater social dominance is heightened by the habitus, or systematic

environment, of the education system, due to the notion that “[a]cademic credentials are thus both weapons and stakes in the symbolic struggles over the definition of social classifications” (Wacquant, 1993, p. 27). There is the perception that education will equalize the opportunity for all individuals regardless of which fields of capital they inherit; however, simultaneously, education, itself, provides a form of capital associated with the intellectual and valued by hegemonic social systems (consider the concept of the literacy myth discussed previously). Bourdieu claims that the state emerges as a “space of bureaucratic powers, as the site of struggles for power over other fields…”

(Wacquant, 1993, p. 42). The school, as a politically charged microsystem of the state, provides a canvas for this struggle of power to unfold.

This section discussed the relevance of symbolic capital and power within fields of production associated with hegemonic culture and language; the next section of this chapter introduces Gee’s (1989) discourse theory to provide a basis for how symbolic capital is furthered within socially accepted ways of using language and communication to signal belonging to preferred social networks.

2.1.2 Primary and Secondary Discourses

The concept of a TCK, for the purpose of this research, is placed in conjunction with Gee’s (1989) definition of discourse. It is through discourse that TCKs develop a sense of identity as members of the social networks to which they belong. According to Gee (1989), discourse is defined as “a socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or social network (p. 18). Gee (1989) suggests that the term discourse refers to ways of communicative behaviour and language that individuals use in order to “take on a particular role that others will recognize” in a specific context (p. 18). According to Gee (2001), discourse is “a sort of ‘identity kit’ which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize” (p. 526). Reflecting on this concept, Williams (2006) indicates that

[t]he primary discourse is often central to what we consider the core elements of our identity. But is is not until we acquire a discourse, until we understand not just how the language works but how to use it in the

appropriate cultural context, that we fully become members of a

community or group. Discourse affects everything from how we position ourselves rhetorically to when we use emotion, what we draw on as examples, and when we decide to use humour. (p. 343)

How one feels like they belong to their cultures of home and of school is

somewhat determined by how well they learn the “identity kit” for each culture – this identity kit is comprised of the way each culture expects one to communicate and behave. A cultural discourse, therefore, is the way someone within a given culture is expected to behave and interact with others within that culture. For example, in Western culture, it is often considered acceptable for an individual to

express a concern or a conflict through direct body language: eye contact, wide hand gesticulations, louder volume of voice, and an upfront style of verbal language; however, in Thai culture, this same kind of discourse could be

perceived as losing face, and thus, disrespectful within the cultural context. Thai culture often expects an individual to use a different mode of cultural discourse within social interactions: eyes lowered or not direct contact, subtle or no hand gesticulations, quiet or softer volume of voice, and indirect or passive style of verbal language – this is perceived as a polite way to communicate conflict in Thai culture, but this could be seen as passive-aggressive (and rude) in Western culture. How should a Thai student having a conflict with a Western teacher, behave, then? This can be very confusing unless both cultural discourses are acquired or understood by both student and teacher. A student looking towards the ground in such a conflict and a teacher who expects eye contact during conflict resolution is a recipe for a cultural misunderstanding disaster in the classroom, and has the potential to further feelings of cultural displacement for the student. Each cultural discourse has specific expectations of how one is to operate within the constructed social norms of that culture, and the way one is to operate within that norm is comprised of the expectations for verbal language and body language (Gee, 1989).

Cultural displacement may be experienced when an individual feels uncomfortable code switching between cultural norms; cultural displacement can also be experienced when one knows how to code switch between cultural contexts but still feels misunderstood through the way that he or she uses

language in order to switch between norms of each cultural context. According to Canagarjah (2013), “[t]ranslinguals treat languages as resources that they can mix and mesh in unusual patterns to construct meaning. The economic metaphor emphasizes the way language is used in relation to one’s social and material interests” (p. 181). The ability to codemesh (Canagarajah, 2013) is a linguistic aspect of successful cultural identity negotiation between cultures associated with different languages. Culture presents the social norms expected of its members within that context, and discourse is the “identity kit” of social communication and behaviour expected of members to use in order to belong to the cultural context. Because this cultural context includes individuals who are expected to communicate and behave in ways that demonstrate belonging to that context, the cultural context, itself, can be considered a space where individuals associate their belonging to others.

In this study, primary discourse refers to cultural aspects of an individual’s initial acquired cultural identity, often the culture of home environment.

Secondary discourse refers to cultural aspects of an individual’s secondary culture, often the dominant culture of the school environment. The third culture a TCK negotiates is the culture between the primary and secondary cultures of influence, yet this culture has aspects that belongs to each culture and blurs the lines between them. Gee (1986) suggests that primary discourse is defined as the

“initial enculturation” that is the first discourse an individual acquires, through native language communication with intimates, individuals “with whom we share a great deal of knowledge because of a great deal of contact and similar

experiences” (p. 20-22). The initial, acquired, enculturated discourse is referred to as the oral mode (Gee, 1986). According to Gee’s (1989) discourse theory, the

“oral mode, developed in the primary process of enculturation [is the] ‘primary discourse’” (p. 22).

Other discourses exist in outside institutions apart from the family and/or home unit of one’s intimates; examples of these institutions are places like schools, workplaces, businesses, offices, etc. Gee (1989) calls these secondary institutions, and the discourses that exist, are practiced, and developed within these secondary institutions secondary discourses. Those whose primary discourses compliment the normative secondary discourses are at a greater

advantage (in terms of symbolic capital) than those whose primary and secondary discourses conflict in a given situation. For example, a TCK who was born and raised in the United States, to parents who are non-immigrant American citizens, who moves to Thailand and attends an American international school may have a greater chance that school secondary culture and its academic discourses better complement their home or primary discourse. A student who is born and raised in Thailand, whose parents are nationals to Thailand, who attends an American international school may have primary cultural discourses at home that conflict with, rather than complement, the secondary cultural discourses at school.

This section discussed the relationship between primary and secondary discourses; the next section will introduce the concept of a dominant discourse in relation to power dynamics of symbolic capital for TCK youth.