Reviews for Industrial Injuries Insurance: International Library of Sociology L: The Sociology of Work a...

The average rating for Industrial Injuries Insurance: International Library of Sociology L: The Sociology of Work a... based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2019-01-18 00:00:00 Cary Anderson This book has been utterly fascinating. I’ve spent the last couple of days reading it and it has changed the way I think about Bernstein. Not least because parts of this were so fluent and clear. This book is a collection of papers Bernstein had published over the years that were then collected and edited to more or less flow as a complete whole. This is only the first volume of four – but I think I can get away with just reading this one for the time being. The question that troubles Bernstein throughout this book is why do working-class kids have more trouble with education than middle-class kids do? A one line answer he gives is: “The working-class child has to translate and thus mediate middle-class language structure through the logically simpler language structure of his own class to make it personally meaningful.” This then begs the question as to why working-class children have logically simpler language structures than middle-class kids – and this is where the discussion becomes very interesting. This problem is best explained by talking about what he refers to as restricted and elaborated codes. All classes have access to (and use) their own version of a restricted code. This is the kind of talk that people use when they are particularly familiar with each other. He gives a lovely example of a long married couple coming out of a cinema and one saying to the other, “That was some film.” The other saying, “Yes, and it touched on some very important themes”. All of the content in this exchange is implicit. This is what Bernstein refers to as a restricted code – its meaning is particular to the people speaking and particular to the context in which they are speaking. If you over-heard them you would not know what they were really talking about (what they really meant, did they enjoy the film or not, for example?) – but to themselves, after a lifetime together, the way the wife curls her lip would mean some of the themes were not what she would have wanted to see in a film and the way her husband nods and smiles conveys the meaning that he thought the actress was particularly nice looking. However, later let’s say the couple meet up with some friends who have not seen the film. Now it is not enough to say that the film was ‘good’ or that it had lots of ‘interesting themes’ – now detail is required, detail of what those themes where and how they were realised in the film, perhaps with reference to the lighting, filming techniques, camera angles and so on. That is, rather than relying on a restricted code (used because of common and shared knowledge), they must now elaborate on details and make what they have to say context independent. Bernstein studied the speech patterns and habits of middle-class and working-class kids and found that, in general, working-class kids were brought up in ways that simply did not expect them to use elaborated codes as frequently (or as well) as their middle-class contemporaries. This is not to say that working-class kids never use an elaborated code, or that middle-class kids never use a restricted code – but rather that each of the classes is oriented towards using one more than the other. And why is this interesting? The problem is that school is mostly conducted in an elaborated linguistic code. That is, for middle-class kids school is a development of their normal speaking habits and thinking patterns – for working-class kids it is a change away from those habits and patterns. School is culturally and linguistically more difficult for working-class kids. The bottom-line being that middle-class kids have two modes of speaking – an elaborated code and a general, restricted code, while working-class kids only have one. The restricted code implies you are part of an in-group and it is only in belonging to such a group that you can fully understand that code. It also implies that people speak as though making selections from a standard phrase book – the best example I can think of is the buzz words that accrete around certain professions. “At the end of the day the paradigm shift was right off the radar screen and any cost/benefit analysis would push the envelop if not first incentivised with the right team players.” Said with the right level of ‘commitment’ and ‘professionalism’ some people may even think such junk means something. Again, the point is more about how you say what you say, rather than what you actually say. A restricted code is verbally restricted – and so non-verbal clues are essential. Restricted language codes also imply certain types of family structures. Let’s take this a little slowly. Elaborated codes give people the ability to differentiate themselves, it allows people to stand independently from what they are speaking about – but this is also interesting as it actually implies distancing. Restricted codes are only possible on the basis of a community of understanding. Like the wife and husband at the cinema, what is left unsaid is more meaningful than what was actually said. When a child puts its hand towards a fire its mother can slap away the hand and tell the child, “No! You are not to do that.” The child has been given a lesson in not doing a particular thing. Another mother might explain that hot things can burn and therefore hurt the child. In saying this, the mother is doing a few things. Firstly, the mother is treating the child with a certain level of intellectual respect – I can tell you why and I expect you will understand. Also, the child, within certain limits, may be able to argue with the second type of mother – if the mother’s reasons are not sensible, the child can engage with this mother in a discussion about these reasons. The first mother merely asserts her dominance on the basis of her position as mother. Naturally, there is nothing that stops both mothers from ending with ‘because, I said so’, however, that is the first and only response of one mother and only the final response of the other. Bernstein found a link between such family relationships and the use of restricted and elaborated language codes and social class. As he says: “Equally as important as the cognitive implications are the social implications. For if this categoric statement is to be challenged, as the reason is the authority conferred upon the person, the challenge immediately gives rise to another typical construction: ‘Because I tell you’ ‘Because I’m your father’. The challenger immediately attacks the authority or legitimacy which is an attribute of the form of the relationship and this brings the social relationship into one of an affective type. However, if a formal language is used, reasons are separated from conclusions. The reasons can be challenged as inadequate or inappropriate which may initiate a second set of reasons or a development of the original set. With a formal language the relationship to authority is mediated by a rationality and the final resort to the categoric statement will come at a different point in the behavioural sequence.” And it gets worse. The restricted code tends to emphases things and the description of things – ‘don’t touch that’, ‘isn’t that a pretty doggy’ – whereas the elaborated code focuses more on processes, on the ‘how’ rather than the ‘what’. Just as Physics was defined by someone as the only true science as it explained processes and all other sciences were ‘stamp collecting’. Both of these together tend to make those who use restricted codes more conservative. Truth to such people is based on the position someone holds, on the well-being of the social group, rather than on reasons given or understood. Needless to say, such attitudes make engaging in school more difficult. While it is easy enough to make generalisations like this, is it actually the case that working-class and middle-class kids do use language in these predictably different ways? This is where the book becomes really very confronting. Bernstein did a series of experiments with kids from various backgrounds and these are reported in detail in the first sixty odd papers of this book. Some of these experiments are incredibly interesting. What if you got a group of working-class kids and a group of middle-class kids and gave them IQ tests (both verbal and non-verbal) and then grouped them so that those who had high IQ in both groups could be compared, would there be any differences? The surprising fact was that there were differences. There were differences in the kinds of words and phrases used – the middle-class kids used less common verbs, adjectives, adverbs and even conjunctions and prepositions. The prepositions were particularly interesting – middle-class kids used ‘of’ more and working-class kids used ‘in’ and ‘into’. That is, working-class kids tended to use prepositions that described where something was in terms of time or space, whereas middle-class kids used prepositions that showed logical relationships. Another truly fascinating test was in asking kids to speak about a particular topic (the death penalty) and then seeing how long they paused while talking and comparing this with the complexity of the language used. High IQ middle-class kids didn’t pause excessively, but still paused much more than any of the working-class kids. The kids with the longest pauses were the lower IQ middle-class kids. What is going on? The middle-class kids have to pause because they are using an individualised communication code – one that is designed to provide precise meanings specific to the circumstances they are confronted with. This requires thought and concentration. The working-class kids are using a restricted communication code – one which contains (by definition) highly predictable word choices. This, therefore, means less time is needed in picking between a limited array of stock phrases, compared with the infinitely harder task of essentially ‘starting from scratch’ in composing your response. The high IQ middle-class kids, with their abilities in verbal dexterity were able to reduce the number and duration of their pauses, however, the difference between them and the working-class kids was still marked. Even when working class kids had the same verbal IQ they spent less time pausing before speaking than the middle-class kids did. His conclusion on this: “Middle-class and working-class subjects in this small sample are oriented towards different levels of verbal planning which control the speech process. These planning orientations are independent of intelligence as measured by two reliable group tests and of word length. They are thus independent of psychological factors and inhere in the linguistic codes which are available to normal individuals. In psychological terms, the codes are stabilized by the planning functions and reinforced in the speaking. They are highly resistant to change as they encapsulate the major effects of socialisation.” But it was in the differences in the type of language used that was most interesting: “Middle-class groups used a high proportion of the following: Subordinations Complex verbal stems Passive voice Total adjectives Uncommon adjectives Uncommon adverbs Uncommon conjunctions Egocentric sequences ‘of’ as a proportion of the sum of the prepositions ‘of’, ‘in’ and ‘into’. (this finding is not consistent within the working-class group) ‘I’ as a proportion of all pronouns ‘I’ as a proportion of total number of words” This last point is particularly interesting – using the elaborated code allows one to subsume oneself in what one says – you are speaking like a book, you are speaking to be understood by anyone and in any circumstance – however, the irony is that you must therefore have a clearer understanding of yourself and your relation to others – this cannot just be assumed as it can when using the restricted code. That relationship is not implicit, it must be made explicit. Therefore middle-class kids tend to use ‘I’ much more frequently (to differentiate themselves from the group) than working class kids who use ‘You’, ‘We’ and ‘They’ much more frequently (to show both identity and non-identity with groups). “If a child is to succeed as he progresses through school it becomes critical for him to possess, or at least be oriented towards, an elaborated code. “The relative backwardness of lower working-class children may well be a form of culturally induced backwardness transmitted to the child through the implications of the linguistic process. The code the child brings to the school symbolises his social identity. It orients him to his kin and to his local social relations. The code orients the child progressively towards a pattern of relationships which constitute for the child his psychological reality, and this reality is reinforced every time he speaks.” The problem being that it is quite different from the code that is expected at school and this increasingly causes problems for the working-class kids. The thing I found most interesting in the whole book, though, is the idea of alienation. For working-class kids, doing well in school is about learning an entirely new linguistic code, one that will separate them out from their social class, because their social class is one based on a hierarchical and positional structure of obligations and appropriate roles based on respect. What they are to learn at school is to differentiate on the basis of reason, and so by definition a rejection of structures based on ‘authority’. That is, a real rebellion is asked of working-class kids, one in the very way they think and communicate and live. This is not the same for middle-class kids (in the main) as they have already been oriented towards this mode of thinking by having access to an elaborated code. However, this is only partly true. Using an elaborated code, as I mentioned before, implies one if forced to differentiate themselves from the group – and this is always alienating in all cases. Education is learning that we don’t ‘belong’, we have no place, we are the ‘other’ and are other to those around us. The dialectic of the individual and identity to the group (what is my identity and how does it relate to group identity) is complex and multifaceted and an essential consequence of an elaborated linguistic code. “A change of code involves changes in the means whereby social identity and reality are created. This argument means that educational institutions in a fluid society carry within themselves alienating tendencies. To say this is not to argue for the preservation of a pseudo-folk culture but is to argue for changes in the social structure of educational institutions; it is also to argue for increased sensitivity on the part of teachers towards both the cultural and cognitive requirements of the formal educational relationship. The problem goes deeper than this. It raises the question of a society which measures human worth, accords respect and grants significance by means of a scale of purely occupational achievement.” After reading all this you may think that Bernstein is saying that working-class kids are disadvantaged linguistically and stuck with a very inferior linguistic code. That we can talk about celebrating ‘difference’ but really we mean acknowledging working-class kids are a bit backward. This isn’t Bernstein’s point at all. As he says: “I want to make one final point. A restricted code contains a vast potential of meanings. It is a form of speech which symbolises a community based culture. It carries its own aesthetic. It should not be devalued.” However, there is more to it than just that, working-class kids come to school with access to only one linguistic code, but that certainly does not mean they should leave school with access to only one linguistic code. He says, “I suggest that we should stop thinking in terms of ‘compensatory education’ but consider instead most seriously and systematically the conditions and contexts of the educational environment.” And then goes on to say: “This may mean that the teacher must be able to understand the child’s dialect, rather than deliberately attempt to change it. Much of the contexts of our schools are unwittingly drawn from aspects of the symbolic world of the middle class, and so when the child steps into school he is stepping into a symbolic system which does not provide for him a linkage with his life outside. “It is an accepted educational principle that we should work with what the child can offer: why don’t we practise it? The introduction of the child to the universalistic meanings of public forms of thought is not compensatory education – it is education.” To which I can only add that I couldn’t agree more.

Review # 2 was written on 2019-03-08 00:00:00 Tom Milford In the first volume of several, Bernstein compiles his essays, analyzing the relationship between linguistic codes and social class. He offers that this correlation affects a child's educability. I admittedly struggled with this book, my first attempt at reading a conceptual framework of this kind. While that is not a fault of the author whatsoever, its density lessened my enjoyment. Nevertheless, the organization of the volume was immensely helpful. With repetition of entire chunks of essays placed among different experiments or arguments, I began to understand Bernstein's theory and definitely agree with the idea that schools operate in a kind of language that undermines the potential of working-class children.