Righteous Dopefiend Language Analysis

In many of the anthropology pieces that have been read and critiqued in class, the topic of language usually comes up in a way to praise or reject that claims that are being made. Anthropologist must constantly be aware of their word choices because they have the power to change the whole connotation of their findings when language is used a certain way, omitted, or modified in translation. One of the first pieces that this discussion of language came up in was in the piece Righteous Dopefiend by Philippe Bourgois and Jeff Schonberg. There were many criticisms and questions regarding the effectiveness of omitting some of the language that the people who were part of their field study were using. The language was omitted because of the vulgar …show more content…
Hill, she cites a quote by James Baldwin that is in reference to the conversation surrounding “African American English”, he says, “It is not the Black child's language which is despised: It is his experience”. Baldwin’s statement is inferring that it is not the language that creates this ignorance that results from a lack of communication, rather it is the already preexisting prejudice that makes parties less receptive. With this “chicken and the egg” situation both causal situations need to be considered. It could very well be that the language usage is irrelevant when there is already prejudice present; however, it could also be that the language being used is offensive, even when not intended to be, and thus creates this ignorance because of a lack of understanding. The foundation of many languages are built upon certain ideologies that could be outdated or seen as offensive to other cultures, even though it is an everyday practice within the culture that speaks that language. When these “offensive” uses of language are taken out of context, many cultures are misunderstood. This can be exemplified in recent utilization of the word “latinx” to serve as a more inclusive word in a language that is very binary gender oriented. Although many have embraced this change, others reject the usage of the word because they feel as though changing the form of many romance languages that are gendered is to erase the culture itself. Those who reject the usage of “latinx” are seen as exclusive and narrow-minded by some, even if that is not the reality. This is a prime example of language being seen of offensive and the result being the formation of ignorance because many believe that hispanics, and other romance language speakers, are not progressive. On the other hand, this in no way negates the point made by Baldwin because his statement holds validity. As Hill discusses in her anthropological piece, in America,