The controversy of "code-switching"

[ThatRobGuy]

Providing both the left-leaning and right-leaning links on this one.

It was recently uncovered (though old video), that recently expelled (and reinstated) TN lawmaker Justin Pearson may be playing a bit of a character with regards to how he talks based on the audience he's talking to.

Tucker Goes on Insanely Bigoted Rant Targeting Black Tennessee Lawmaker

It appears Tucker Carlson has just discovered code-switching—and he is not happy about it.

www.thedailybeast.com

It Sure Looks Like Expelled TN Dem Justin Pearson Is a Total Fraud

redstate.com

Now, obviously both outlets are putting their own "spin" on this. With the DailyBeast putting the focus on how bad Tucker Carlson is for the way he covered it, and RedState putting the emphasis on him being a "fraud" (thereby attempting to delegitimize the fact that he was the rightfully elected holder of that seat, and spin it into a broader condemnation of Democrats)



But I think the concept of Code-switching is an interesting one.

Obviously it sometimes makes sense to "speak the lingo" of people you're trying to connect with to a certain degree (for instance, it's not uncommon for politicians to sprinkle in a little southern lingo like "y'all" when they're campaigning in the south or in an area where certain slangs and expressions are different), but at what point does it leave that more benign realm and become nothing more than shameless pandering. Pandering, which, sometimes escalates to a person adopting something of a "phony" persona that can come across as a cringy, and could even be viewed by some as patronizing.

For instance, if I were in Australia and trying to "use the lingo" to connect with some folks, there's a big difference between saying "Cheers, mate" (when I would otherwise say "hello", even though it would still seem a little goofy hearing an american say it) ...and dressing up in a Khaki outfit and yelling "crikey!" (thereby implying "This is what I think Australians are like" in a way that would come across as insulting or even mocking)



Where this case with Justin Pearson is unique is that he's actually in the same group of the vernacular and persona he's trying to convey.

For instance, if a white dude (who normally talks the way Justin used to talk in the first video) started talking the way he was talking in the latter video, he'd like be accused of doing a distasteful "black guy impression". But, obviously Justin doing it isn't going to draw the same backlash.

What he's doing there, I would say, more comparable to someone who may be of Italian heritage (but was born and raised in rural Pennsylvania), putting on a persona where they start slicking their hair back, wearing a gold chain, and talking like an Italian character out of a 1970's movie because because they think "that's what'll help me connect to my fellow Italians in the big city"

 

[RocksInMyHead]

What he's doing there, I would say, more comparable to someone who may be of Italian heritage (but was born and raised in rural Pennsylvania), putting on a persona where they start slicking their hair back, wearing a gold chain, and talking like an Italian character out of a 1970's movie because because they think "that's what'll help me connect to my fellow Italians in the big city"

Which is, frankly, a time-honored tradition in politics and entertainment (which, for good or for ill - mostly ill - are becoming increasingly intertwined). For some other recent examples, there's Kid Rock, who pretends to be trailer trash despite the fact that he grew up in a wealthy suburb. Or George W. Bush, who really played up his Texas accent and cultivated a "folksy" demeanor to appeal to his constituency. "Country" musicians have often never set foot on a farm other than to film music videos, and so on.

Pearson's delivery is definitely a bit over-the-top and approaching the point of being a parody, but he's also young and relatively new to politics - I suspect he'll tone it down at some point. And most importantly, his constituents are happy with him and his persona. The RedState article pins the blame on the radicalization of politics, but focuses entirely on the Democratic Party - ignoring the similar characters (some of whom at least appear to be genuinely nuts rather than just playing a character) that have cropped up among the Republicans in recent years.

 

[rambot]

Which is, frankly, a time-honored tradition in politics and entertainment (which, for good or for ill - mostly ill - are becoming increasingly intertwined). For some other recent examples, there's Kid Rock, who pretends to be trailer trash despite the fact that he grew up in a wealthy suburb. Or George W. Bush, who really played up his Texas accent and cultivated a "folksy" demeanor to appeal to his constituency. "Country" musicians have often never set foot on a farm other than to film music videos, and so on.

Pearson's delivery is definitely a bit over-the-top and approaching the point of being a parody, but he's also young and relatively new to politics - I suspect he'll tone it down at some point. And most importantly, his constituents are happy with him and his persona. The RedState article pins the blame on the radicalization of politics, but focuses entirely on the Democratic Party - ignoring the similar characters (some of whom at least appear to be genuinely nuts rather than just playing a character) that have cropped up among the Republicans in recent years.

EVERY politician is a millionaire in the US right now right?

EVERY politician in the US desperately tries to relate like (and to) the "common man".

I'm not sure why this is any kind of issue.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Which is, frankly, a time-honored tradition in politics and entertainment (which, for good or for ill - mostly ill - are becoming increasingly intertwined). For some other recent examples, there's Kid Rock, who pretends to be trailer trash despite the fact that he grew up in a wealthy suburb. Or George W. Bush, who really played up his Texas accent and cultivated a "folksy" demeanor to appeal to his constituency. "Country" musicians have often never set foot on a farm other than to film music videos, and so on.

Pearson's delivery is definitely a bit over-the-top and approaching the point of being a parody, but he's also young and relatively new to politics - I suspect he'll tone it down at some point. And most importantly, his constituents are happy with him and his persona. The RedState article pins the blame on the radicalization of politics, but focuses entirely on the Democratic Party - ignoring the similar characters (some of whom at least appear to be genuinely nuts rather than just playing a character) that have cropped up among the Republicans in recent years.

Obviously with music, all bets are off and there's a plethora of phonies in that realm (as you mentioned, Kid Rock and about 75% of country singers) Rap has no shortage as well (like Rick Ross putting on a certain outlaw persona despite being a former prison guard, or Drake pretending to be "hood" despite growing up in a suburb in Canada)


However, with politicians, I'd agree that "adopting some lingo" has become par for the course (like republicans adopting an "extra southern" southern accent, or like AOC adding some adding some extra roll of the tongue pronouncing Spanish words in front of a Latino crowd (but not doing that any other time), or like John Fetterman showing up in work boots an Carhartt gear)

Taking it to the extent Pearson has is something unique, at least from what I can remember of the politics in my time, the transformation is what I would call excessive...especially when you consider that he's not only adopting a persona that's not his own (based on what he thinks inner city Black people in the south talk like), it doesn't even sound like he got the time period right as he's imitating, what sounds like, some sort of preacher from the 1960's.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not sure why this is any kind of issue.

I don't think trying to "appeal to the common man" is anything controversial. I think where it becomes a bit patronizing is when it becomes "pandering to a caricature of what you think a group is like"

If someone were campaigning in the south, it'd be the difference between saying "Hey Y'all, we ready to take care of business!", and showing up doing, what looks like, a cringy Larry the Cable Guy impression. (which, ironically, is in of itself a bad southern impression as he's a nothern guy who went to drama school)

 

[rambot]

Hmm. I watched that really great speech he gave on the floor. Nothing about that seemed untoward at all. Perhaps I need to look at some videos of the dude?

On the red state, it seems they are comparing him to a video of himself from 6 years ago? IS that basically it?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Hmm. I watched that really great speech he gave on the floor. Nothing about that seemed untoward at all. Perhaps I need to look at some videos of the dude?

On the red state, it seems they are comparing him to a video of himself from 6 years ago? IS that basically it?

If we've gotten to the point where we're electing people who are playing full blown characters, I don't think that that's a strong indicator for a healthy democracy.

Expelled Tennessee lawmaker Justin Pearson’s transformation goes viral

A Democrat expelled last week from the Tennessee House of Representatives cultivated a very different persona while running to be his college’s student body president in 2016, newly unearthed video…

nypost.com

You wouldn't say the transition from video from 6 years ago till now (I'd recommend starting at the 30 second mark of the later video) is just a tad over the top?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Code switching is older than 30 years, probably much older. One of my wife's grad students from Chicago talked to my wife about writing a paper on the topic. (This was 30 years ago, hence my first sentence.)

Her description of her experience was that her grandmother, parents, herself, and her younger brother all had dialect differences. They all "switched" depending which person they were talking to. She even noted that she had to translate between her grandmother and her younger brother.

I remember a black professor talking to us (back in the early 80s) about calling real estate agents talking as they would with their family and getting the run around. Then they'd call back and "talk white" and get a completely different reaction.

This is a whole lot of nothing and Tucker Carlson is stupid. Or rather, talk about pandering.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Hmm. I watched that really great speech he gave on the floor. Nothing about that seemed untoward at all. Perhaps I need to look at some videos of the dude?

On the red state, it seems they are comparing him to a video of himself from 6 years ago? IS that basically it?

The "now" video in the RedState article does have him sounding a bit like a stereotypical revival preacher in terms of his inflection, and the video from 2016 makes it clear that this is not his "normal" way of speaking, but I'm fairly certain that the preachers who talk like that during sermons and speeches don't talk the same way in everyday life either.

 

[rambot]

If we've gotten to the point where we're electing people who are playing full blown characters, I don't think that that's a strong indicator for a healthy democracy.

Expelled Tennessee lawmaker Justin Pearson’s transformation goes viral

A Democrat expelled last week from the Tennessee House of Representatives cultivated a very different persona while running to be his college’s student body president in 2016, newly unearthed video…

nypost.com

You wouldn't say the transition from video from 6 years ago till now (I'd recommend starting at the 30 second mark of the later video) is just a tad over the top?

I wonder if perhaps he simply just learned some good skills in oration.

I'm not sure if it's entirely fair (though I CERTAINLY understand the skepticism) to pin people to a certain time and suggest that deviation from that over the course of their life is them being "fake".

I'm not sure if it's better if they are "playing full blown characters" or if they ARE "full blown characters".

 

[rambot]

Also, just to be clear, this is REALLY just "pandering" to an audience right?

I'm just having a trouble understanding why, when every politician throughout history has done this, this guy here is some kind of issue.

Like, why is THIS case a controversy?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Also, just to be clear, this is REALLY just "pandering" to an audience right?

I'm just having a trouble understanding why, when every politician throughout history has done this, this guy here is some kind of issue.

Like, why is THIS case a controversy?

It isn't a controversy, but the Right is trying to make it one because he's fighting for gun control, which is one of their babies. That instantly makes him a target. I think the "fraud" angle is an attempt to paint him as being somehow the same as George Santos - they haven't outright said it yet, but that seems like where it's going. And they're trying to turn his constituents against him by demonstrating that he's not a "real black man" because he went to an upper-class white-majority college and can "talk white".

 

[rambot]

It isn't a controversy, but the Right is trying to make it one because he's fighting for gun control, which is one of their babies. That instantly makes him a target. I think the "fraud" angle is an attempt to paint him as being somehow the same as George Santos - they haven't outright said it yet, but that seems like where it's going. And they're trying to turn his constituents against him by demonstrating that he's not a "real black man" because he went to an upper-class white-majority college and can "talk white".

I am inclined to understand the truth of this even if it would get denied by others.

Thanks for the summation!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Also, just to be clear, this is REALLY just "pandering" to an audience right?

I'm just having a trouble understanding why, when every politician throughout history has done this, this guy here is some kind of issue.

Like, why is THIS case a controversy?

Actually, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that this guy shouldn't be able to use whatever approach he wants to draw voters.
(in the other thread about these two guys who got expelled, I was on their side and described what happened to them as a form of retroactive voter suppression)

I'm a firm believer in the quote "In a democracy, the people should get what they voted for...and deserve to get it good and hard"

I just question how sincere a person would be if they're basically playing a character.

Obviously, this old video of him probably wasn't widely disseminated prior to him being in the national spotlight. However, knowing what people know now...

If I were a voter who was drawn to him, in part, due to his way of speaking, and the persona he's been portraying in the TN statehouse, I'd now have to wonder "Well, is that what we're going to keep getting, the nostalgic Black activist who wears a Dashiki and speaks like an old preacher, Or will he go back to the prep school Legal Studies major who went to school in Maine and said things like 'I want to bring together different voices — dissenting voices, voices that may be more liberal or more conservative — in order that we can reach a point of the middle' while wearing a fancy suit and a silk tie?"


I would have to think that his retro radical activist persona is what drew a lot of people to him, which is fine, but I would think some people would be wondering if they just got sold on a lie.


For instance, if I were a young Latino voter and was specifically looking for a leader who was like me, and willing to radically shake things up, it'd be fine (and quite understandable) if I voted for someone who sounded an awful lot like Cesar Chavez when they spoke. However, I'd probably be less than thrilled if I found out I had voted for what equated to Carlos Mencia doing a Cesar Chavez impression.

 

[Pommer]

Providing both the left-leaning and right-leaning links on this one.

It was recently uncovered (though old video), that recently expelled (and reinstated) TN lawmaker Justin Pearson may be playing a bit of a character with regards to how he talks based on the audience he's talking to.

Tucker Goes on Insanely Bigoted Rant Targeting Black Tennessee Lawmaker

It appears Tucker Carlson has just discovered code-switching—and he is not happy about it.

www.thedailybeast.com

It Sure Looks Like Expelled TN Dem Justin Pearson Is a Total Fraud

redstate.com

Now, obviously both outlets are putting their own "spin" on this. With the DailyBeast putting the focus on how bad Tucker Carlson is for the way he covered it, and RedState putting the emphasis on him being a "fraud" (thereby attempting to delegitimize the fact that he was the rightfully elected holder of that seat, and spin it into a broader condemnation of Democrats)



But I think the concept of Code-switching is an interesting one.

Obviously it sometimes makes sense to "speak the lingo" of people you're trying to connect with to a certain degree (for instance, it's not uncommon for politicians to sprinkle in a little southern lingo like "y'all" when they're campaigning in the south or in an area where certain slangs and expressions are different), but at what point does it leave that more benign realm and become nothing more than shameless pandering. Pandering, which, sometimes escalates to a person adopting something of a "phony" persona that can come across as a cringy, and could even be viewed by some as patronizing.

For instance, if I were in Australia and trying to "use the lingo" to connect with some folks, there's a big difference between saying "Cheers, mate" (when I would otherwise say "hello", even though it would still seem a little goofy hearing an american say it) ...and dressing up in a Khaki outfit and yelling "crikey!" (thereby implying "This is what I think Australians are like" in a way that would come across as insulting or even mocking)



Where this case with Justin Pearson is unique is that he's actually in the same group of the vernacular and persona he's trying to convey.

For instance, if a white dude (who normally talks the way Justin used to talk in the first video) started talking the way he was talking in the latter video, he'd like be accused of doing a distasteful "black guy impression". But, obviously Justin doing it isn't going to draw the same backlash.

What he's doing there, I would say, more comparable to someone who may be of Italian heritage (but was born and raised in rural Pennsylvania), putting on a persona where they start slicking their hair back, wearing a gold chain, and talking like an Italian character out of a 1970's movie because because they think "that's what'll help me connect to my fellow Italians in the big city"

The link to the dailybeast article appears to be borked..

 

[Pommer]

The "now" video in the RedState article does have him sounding a bit like a stereotypical revival preacher in terms of his inflection, and the video from 2016 makes it clear that this is not his "normal" way of speaking, but I'm fairly certain that the preachers who talk like that during sermons and speeches don't talk the same way in everyday life either.

This also has a “we can’t speak to his message but we can talk about his delivery” vibe.

 

[Merrill]

As a former teacher of rhetoric and argument theory at a college in the south, I understand why "code-switching" is employed (it can be effective), but ...

I denounce it as manipulative and intellectually dishonest. It frequently involves argument from circumstance rather than principle, expediency vs. virtue or honor, and taps into ugly identity politics. I was very firm with my students if they ventured into this realm, and quickly corrected them

If your message or argument is not suitable for all people, and not persuasive to everyone, it is deficient, and likely flawed.

The great Spanish philosopher Julian Marias remarked "good rhetoric is always true, and bad is always false"

Let's take the Gospels: they are true and right regardless of the audience. They uplift, edify, and can even save those that listen. We do not pollute the words of the Gospel, or change around the terms and principles, based on the skin color of the audience, their nationality, or their prejudices.

 

[rambot]

As a former teacher of rhetoric and argument theory at a college in the south, I understand why "code-switching" is employed (it can be effective), but ...

I denounce it as manipulative and intellectually dishonest. It frequently involves argument from circumstance rather than principle, expediency vs. virtue or honor, and taps into ugly identity politics. I was very firm with my students if they ventured into this realm, and quickly corrected them
......

The great Spanish philosopher Julian Marias remarked "good rhetoric is always true, and bad is always false"

Let's take the Gospels: they are true and right regardless of the audience. They uplift, edify, and can even save those that listen. We do not pollute the words of the Gospel, or change around the terms and principles, based on the skin color of the audience, their nationality, or their prejudices.

I will differ to your experitise on this matter because I am not really familiar with it, but I'm wondering whether "code-switching" is something that exists as a spectrum? Where there are WILD swings (many of the example given by ThatRobGuy), but also more subtle ones (the "r" rolling that was also brought up). And if it is, are there any versions you feel are okay or is it ALL tossable?

I'm also curious if "code-switching" also applies to couching language depending on the crowd you are addressing or if it's only something about a persons "characteristics/character"?

There is one thing I may catch you out on:

If your message or argument is not suitable for all people, and not persuasive to everyone, it is deficient, and likely flawed.

I don't know if I've EVER heard a politician create a message or argument that WAS suitable for all people; certainly not persausive to everyone". In fact, I'm not convinced I've heard many of that type of argument....from anyone.

 

[Merrill]

I will differ to your experitise on this matter because I am not really familiar with it, but I'm wondering whether "code-switching" is something that exists as a spectrum? Where there are WILD swings (many of the example given by ThatRobGuy), but also more subtle ones (the "r" rolling that was also brought up). And if it is, are there any versions you feel are okay or is it ALL tossable?

I'm also curious if "code-switching" also applies to couching language depending on the crowd you are addressing or if it's only something about a persons "characteristics/character"?

Code-switching can involve a number of things:

1. Elocution: adopting a different accent, manner-of-speech, etc.
2. Adoption of "God Terms" and "Devil Terms" to sway an audience which has certain attitudes and prejudices.
3. Tapping into slogans, political and/or ideological phrases
4. Arguing from circumstance rather than principle. (It is wrong to murder, but in this case we must make an exception because ...)

This is a perfect example--imagine of Hitler were alive today? What would he say to a crowd to win them over? A master speaker would do this

 

[keith99]

...
For instance, if I were in Australia and trying to "use the lingo" to connect with some folks, there's a big difference between saying "Cheers, mate" (when I would otherwise say "hello", even though it would still seem a little goofy hearing an american say it) ...and dressing up in a Khaki outfit and yelling "crikey!" (thereby implying "This is what I think Australians are like" in a way that would come across as insulting or even mocking)

...

And one would look the fool if they talked about putting a shrimp on the barbie.

And down under if you mentioned code switching they would think you were talking about someone changing from playing Rugby League to Playing Rugby Union or the other way round!

I'd expect anyone from the U.K. to avoid saying they would stop by to knock someone up!

But I guess some people out there think that refraining from saying things that are rude in a local dialect is dishonest if they are acceptable where one grew up.