Recontextualisation and Flipping the Script

In this section I propose that there are conceptual similarities between recontextualisation

and “flipping the script.” Recontextualisation is a term used in the academic field of discourse analysis while flipping the script is a colloquial term that has connections to “urban culture.” By applying script flipping as an analytic tool, it may be possible to draw on a concept that has been identified by the cultural group who is the focus of the

research and interpretation.

E. Summerson Carr (2011), while conducting an ethnographic research project at an American addictions treatment centre, observed that clients are expected to learn to talk about certain topics in certain ways. She problematises the belief that words provide

access to inner truths, a commonly held assumption that forms the basis of typical counselling approaches. Therefore, she suggests that, regardless of a person’s beliefs or actions, they learn to present themselves as the “proper” type of client who uses the proper words, which affords them access to resources such as shelter and food. She termed this process “flipping the script.” In some cases it seems that the scripts become internally persuasive, while in other situations the person is able to say the “right” words while continuing practices that are contrary to what they say. For example, a person might be able to describe how they developed “insight” to the need to commit to the process of recovery, yet in practice continue to use cocaine on a daily basis.

Flipping the script was acknowledged to occur in funding proposals, committee meetings, and policy development. In order to increase the internal persuasiveness of proposed changes to practice or requests for funding, a rationale was developed drawing on scripts that held authority despite inherent philosophical contradictions. It was

proposed that “script flipping” entails the “trumping of a rhetorical component” that involves responding with a critical awareness of power relations in the setting. It was also proposed that script flipping involved an aspect of “volitional reframing of identity” (Carr, 2011, p. 220).

Carr’s (2011) use of the definition of flipping the script demonstrates, at its core, the concept of recontextualisation. She recognises that “people can act politically by strategically reproducing — rather than simply resisting — ideologies of language” (p. 19), but uses the term to mean two separate acts. First, she notes that people produce forms of talk that make it more likely that they will access certain resources and services. For example, during a previous interview, Nikki (a research participant) had explained her life was recently “transformed” by a man she was romantically involved with who, also a recovering alcoholic, encouraged her to seek treatment for drug use. Nikki later laughed and stated, “Girl, don’t you know, I flipped a script on you?!” (p. 18). Carr (2011) realised that when Nikki was on probation from an addiction program, she formulated a narrative account that could influence re-entry into the program, obtain social services, and prevent her children from being removed from her care. After Nikki’s acceptance to the program was terminated, she constructed a narrative with an intention

to achieve different ends. In this way, it can be seen that the person speaking recognised the type of talk that was expected in order to achieve a particular outcome, which meant purposefully fabricating an entire narrative account.

Carr (2011) also discussed the term “flipping the script” to portray the manner in which events or circumstances are not fabricated, but certain terms are adopted and integrated in order to achieve a desired outcome. Again, she presents this idea in multiple ways. For example, she describes a board meeting where certain terms and constructs were adopted into the program description that contrasted the values espoused by the organisation. By integrating certain terms and ideas into the program description, it is more likely that the organisation will receive funding from the government agencies. She also describes this in regard to some the recipients of the therapeutic interventions:

Flipping the script was a matter of perfectly reproducing therapeutic scripts, in both their generic form and textual context, with one big exception — script flippers did not match their spoken words to their inner signifiers (i.e. their thoughts, feelings and intentions). (p. 191)

Flipping a script was not a reflection of a person’s own beliefs, but “an acute, highly attuned know-how … of how one’s words aligned with the desires, intentions, and motivations of those who listened” (p. 193).

Carr’s work is significant in that it brings to the forefront the notion that people do many things with words, not just reflect their own opinions, beliefs, and thoughts.

Learning to talk about personal drug use in a certain way is often perceived as evidence that the person has learned new ways of thinking and is interpreted as therapeutic progress. As a result, the person may be rewarded with positive reinforcement in therapeutic contexts, may be awarded custody of their children, and may be found to satisfy court-mandated counselling. Alternatively, a person who does not consistently conform their talk toward therapeutic expectations may be labelled as “difficult,” “manipulative,” “precontemplative,” “in denial,” and “non-compliant,” to name a few.

The term “flip the script” gained its use in reference to freestyle rap or hip hop music (Robert, Bell, & Murphy, 2008). The discursive practice of flipping a script is to “appropriate and modify an ‘old’ or historical concept to produce something new”

(Robert, et al., 2008, p. 337). To also consider the colloquial use of the phrase, I turned to the Urban Dictionary (2012). The Urban Dictionary is an online collaborative website where contemporary meanings of urban discourse is defined and discussed. The top three entries were:

1. “To do the unexpected. To deviate from the norm.”

2. “Commonly used in rap battles, it means to take what somebody said against you and to use it against them.”

3. “[T]o gain control in a dialogue that is being dominated by another person so that you are now in charge.”

It is important to note that the ways in which flipping the script can be enacted may vary depending on the context. The occurrence of script flipping is particularly telling because it bears to question what it is about “the nature of the social and institutional relations that require the acquisition and maintenance of practices like flipping the script” (Carr, 2011, p. 223).

I assert that the urban culture meanings of “flipping the script” are closely related to the meanings associated with recontextualisation. Both are discursive practices used to appropriate the words and concepts of a dominant discourse and strategically transform the meanings and associated ways of being, acting, and thinking. Carr’s work sets the foundation for the data analysis that is presented in this thesis. The context of her research was a formal addiction treatment centre in the United States, which is much different from the context of this thesis involving Canadian participants who do not identify a reason or need to attend counselling, and who rely very little, if at all, on the

supplemental social services. Nevertheless, there is a common thread of negotiating discursive practices of personal drug use among multiple dominant societal discourses.

Adam Mansbach (2001) holds a Masters Degree in Fine Arts and is the founding editor of the hip hop journal, “Elementary.” In the lyrics to his song, “notes from under sound,” he uses hip hop to reflectively express the discursive practices embedded within

hip hop as an expressive form. He demonstrates the idea that people who perceive themselves to be in social positions that hold less respect or authority make explicit attempts to dominate discourses through discursive means of recontextualisation. In these lyrics, Mansbach starts by indicating that there is a “schism” (or a gap) in relating

between people in the hip hop culture and the “nons” (p. 66) or, in other words, those located in the non-hip hop culture, particularly in formal bureaucratic contexts. People in the hip hop culture are not expected to be the group that conforms to general society. In response, Mansbach says, hip hop acts by “recontextualizing” language (p. 67), “cross- pollinating ideas,” (p. 67) and it “recycles everything” (p. 69). It means holding your ground, even in the presence of your “idols” (p. 69). Hip hop is constantly progressing, and can gain the upper hand given the slow pace of everyday “talk” (p. 69). Hip hop is a discursive practice that breaks free of “any & all attempts to define[,] explain [and] categorize” (p. 69). It is a way to “talk over” (p. 69) authoritative discourse, rather than an attempt to “talk to” (p. 69). Hip hop gives voice to all who choose to engage in it, hoping for, but not expecting, an enlightened truth. At the same time, because hip hop is viewed as an insular, isolated community that a mainstream audience may make little effort to understand, there is an awareness of a political action, such that “the devil listens in” (p. 71). The voices expressed in hip hop are heard and are recognised to have potential influence within authoritative and dominant discourses.

Recontextualisation potentially contributes to understanding the discursive practices of people or groups who perceive themselves to be positioned outside what is considered to be socially acceptable. It can act as an alternative to feeling silenced, which will be discussed in the next section.