dialects and politics

The article was chuck full of relevant stuff to reflect upon but I would like to return to an idea I wrote about last time as I see it being addressed in the article as an element which has political implications. Although I am not too familiar with Scottish politics and public consciousness of drug abuse, I would argue that the political implications are more complex than simply reminding folks of bad habits taken up by those on the fringe. Rather, I think the fringe, not the habit or its consumptive basis is really something worth considering, especially in context to a political function of language. I really agree with Alan Freeman’s assertion that, "focusing on social margins not only affirms their inhabitants but also illuminates the center against which they are defined and, in this novel, Welsh dramatises the repressive processes of post-industrial individualism”. I think this is essential to understanding how language is functioning in a transgressive and political way in Trainspotting.  This challenge of “individualism” in post-industrial culture I think is something we have been dealing with all semester and is treated differently by every other, but nonetheless, often finds great exaggeration to forge characters that transgress. It rears its head all around the dapper dressers of the Lang halls. Everyone with their own esoteric interests and sense of identity that is, at least as I have observed, often constituted by how it stands in contrast to the “center against which they are defined”. Regardless though, the issue here is the utilization of particular dialect and its possible political functions. At one point, the argument is raised that the inclusion of the glossary is reductive and imposes some sort of hegemonic construct that informs the reader that the use of language is in fact something spoken by the “other”.  I don’t know exactly how I feel about the latter assertion but I can say rather confidently that one of the interesting functions of slang is, as freeman alludes, how it functions within a group and their respective identity.  I would assert that in all actuality, barring actors who in a sense accomplish this through role playing, the function of slang is not fully realized until it constitutes a mode of communication one is capable of assuming.  Moreover, one cannot assume this mode of communication unless one has actually heard it. Again I will reference all that I have to go by, but I am reminded of the numerous skits on 90’s hip hop albums. Is it simply a brief rupture in the whole album’s experience, or is it something more?  I think that what is actually going on is that, the identity associated with a particular dialect is being taken out of the strictly musical context and shown to the listener as an actual mode of being and not simply a style to assume in order to create music. For those who are familiar with the dialect, it affirms a common culture, perhaps a similar sense of humor, or simply a shared identity.  However, for those who are unfamiliar, it demonstrates, “the center against which”, things foreign are inevitably defined by. As much as I have enjoyed the book, I think what I am trying to communicate is that dialects, although comprehensible in written word, find a really heightened sense of clarity when it is spoken amongst those whose identity it helps constitute.  I don’t really have the authority to say this, but I feel like Shakespeare for example, although beautiful and poetic in linguistic style cannot be fully realized until it is seen and heard as something spoken. It is a slang unto itself, and hearing the free verse juxtaposed with the iambic pentameter seemingly makes more clear the function of two separate, but not unequal, dialects.