In this blog, I want to discuss the idea of sound-shapes. Sound-shapes relate to the idea of language-as-code, and are the code by which we become aware of our environment. The importance of this idea underpins the evolving discussion of the learning-teaching relationship and how the entirely artificial learning-teaching environment of school has failed until now.

The idea of language-as-code is not new. Basil Bernstein (1970) [1] writes:

The concept of socio-linguistic code points to the social structuring of meanings and to their diverse but related contextual realizations. A careful reading of the papers always shows the emphasis given to the form of the social relationship, that is the structuring of relevant meanings. Indeed, role is defined as a complex coding activity controlling the creation and organization of specific meanings and the conditions for their transmission and reception (italics in original).

In the context of the idea of sound-shapes, there are several points to note in what Bernstein writes. The first is that he refers to “socio-linguistic code”. I draw on the idea of language-as-code in describing the idea of sound-shapes.

The second point is that Bernstein refers to “the social structuring of meanings”. This is an important point because it can be used to demonstrate that when speaker or writer, and listener or reader, do not share the same language-as-code, meaning is typically problematic. The idea of sound-shapes addresses the problematic nature of an unshared code, and goes to the heart of the failure of schooling.

The third point to note in what Bernstein writes is that he refers to “the form of the social relationship”. The form of the social relationship is central to how and why the learning-teaching relationship matters, and to whom. The failure of schooling may be attributable to choices made about the form of the social relationship at schools and in the broader community. Thus, the idea of the form of the social relationship is included here.

Next, Bernstein refers to “a complex coding activity controlling the creation and organization of specific meanings”. Again, coding and its relationship to meaning are central ideas in this blog.

Finally, Bernstein writes about the “conditions for their [meanings’] transmission and reception”. On this point, I differ from Bernstein because of evidence of the highly problematic nature of meaning in the social context of people who do not share the same language-as-code.

The next matter to address is that of the role of gestures (including so-called body language) in the socio-linguistic context of sound-shapes. Simply, gestures and body language (as well as the various non-Western written forms of languages) are included in the ‘shapes’ part of sound-shapes. Voice, and its many permutations, is included in the ‘sound’ part.

Socio-linguistic code is a summation of the socio-linguistic aspects of the learning-teaching relationship, including the complexity inherent in the question of how and why it matters, and to whom. When people share a language code, meaning may be constructed from the sound-shapes they encounter in their experience of life. When they do not share the same language code, meaning is highly problematic. What can be considered as a result of this is that meaning may not be able of transmission. Rather, it may be a constructed reality in the mind of someone who shares not only the same language-as-code but also a similar sociocultural experience.

The sharing of a similar sociocultural experience is important in the interpretation of the sound-shapes in a relevant way. Bernstein writes about the “conditions for their [meanings’] transmission and reception”, but I argue that meaning cannot be transmitted. Instead, what is transmitted is a socio-linguistic code of sound-shapes that can be used to construct meaning, but only if the recipient of the sound-shapes shares the same language-as-code, and a similar sociocultural experience as the source of the code—a book, a speaker, a signpost, a newspaper, and so on.

Evidence for this can be encountered in the idea of the sound-shapes 猫 or ねこ. To someone who shares the language-as-code of the Japanese, the meaning of these two sound-shapes may be constructed immediately and readily, albeit inclusive of some vagaries explained below. To those who do not, it is mysterious, and no meaning can be constructed, other than perhaps a meaning approximating ‘I do not understand this language’. From these two sound-shapes, however, similar meaning can be interpreted by someone who shares the code. To a person whose sociocultural and socio-linguistic experiences are in the English language-as-code, the relevant sound-shape necessary to invoke a socioculturally relevant meaning in the mind of the recipient of the code is the ‘word’ cat. To someone who shares the language-as-code of those of us who speak English and who can draw on sociocultural and socio-linguistic experiences to enable us to construct meaning on the basis of the sound-shape ‘cat’, we immediately ‘know’ what we are thinking about.

Interestingly, though, if we take a minute to consider an aspect of the meaning invoked, we might discover that the meaning to you is a tabby cat; while the meaning to me is a so-called Siamese cat. This is a useful finding because it reveals that meaning is not transmitted but constructed in the mind of the recipient of the code, and that the recipient’s sociocultural and socio-linguistic experiences bear heavily on the interpretation of the code to construct relevant meaning. What follows from this is Bernstein’s idea that meaning is socially structured.

The social structuring of meaning is, however, necessarily something that occurs in the socioculturally-attuned mind of the recipient of the relevant code. When meaning is constructed on receipt of the relevant code, but not clearly, the recipient may ask for clarification—‘do you mean…?’ Interestingly, this socio-linguistic tool implies that meaning is intended by the sender of the sound-shapes. While there is intuitively an implied meaning in the mind of the transmitter of the sound-shapes, one predicated on the transmitter’s sociocultural experiences of life, there is no guarantee the intended meaning will be constructed in exactly the same way in the mind of the recipient of the code. Misunderstanding can often arise because of lack of clarity in the sound-shapes selected for transmission, or because both share similar (but sufficiently different) experiences. The relevance of this to the assertion of the failure of schooling relates to the idea that schooling in schools (as opposed to home schooling, an equally insidious idea because the taxation attributed to schooling in schools is not returned to those who choose to home school) alters the sociocultural and socio-linguistic experiences of those compelled to attend, and not necessarily in ways that complement the interests of the individuals who attend.

In a later blog, I will argue that a large proportion of the disinterest in schooling these days, and perhaps even historically, derives from incongruent assumptions about how and why the learning-teaching relationship matters, and to whom. As in a marriage, or indeed any other form of human relationship—the entire human experience, I will argue, unfolds in a learning-teaching relationship—when the assumptions of those who relate in this way are congruent, the relationship is likely to endure. When their assumptions about how and why the relationship matters begin to differ, one or the other, or both, may begin to withdraw from the relationship. When the assumptions are significantly different enough, one or other may choose to leave the relationship. I will argue later that leaving the learning-teaching relationship that schooling compels us to participate in, may be nothing more than a reflection of incongruent assumptions about how and why that particular construction of the learning-teaching relationship matters, and to whom.

For now, however, I turn back to Bernstein’s “form of the social relationship”. The form of the social relationship is a central pillar in the thesis that emerges from these blogs—that we do not have sufficient socioculturally or socio-linguistically shared assumptions about the learning-teaching relationship to enable us to act responsibly in relation to the compulsion to schooling. Thus, we act typically independently of each other to impose our sociocultural and socio-linguistic assumptions, experiences, and desires on others, largely to reproduce a society in which we are more or less comfortable, but which may or may not be relevant to the next generation. We reproduce ourselves in the idea of schooling, and for the most part do so without formal consent. To top off what is a rather tasteless cake, whichever way you slice it…we are compelled by taxation to pay for schooling, and have little or no say in the curriculum we are compelled to endure. Is it any wonder we encounter incongruent assumptions about how and why the learning-teaching relationship matters, and to whom?

In the context of the social relationship referred to by Bernstein, a key part of the emerging discussion will be the idea of consent. Why is it that we wake up one day and go to a school, without apparently considering what that institution is or what it represents? I venture to suggest that a moment’s introspection will reveal that very few if any of us have ever formally consented to be compelled to be schooled, much less to the idea of enduring the random collation of ideas by a remote body of ordinary citizens, which forms the focus of twelve or so years at the front end of life when we have no experience against which to test any underlying assumptions about the relevance of the ideas. It’s only when we become teenagers that we are enabled by an emerging arrogance to challenge the underlying assumptions, and, in many cases, find them insubstantial or less relevant than we had been led to believe.

The role of a mythical, so-called, State is prominent in the reproduction of ‘self’, and I will argue that people who do not know my child have no place compelling it to study a random curriculum to achieve a social status it may or may not wish to achieve, much less one for which, as its parent, I ought to take full responsibility. As an ordinary citizen, I do not have the right to compel a neighbour’s child to endure my curriculum. Where does that right spring from? How can our elected representatives exercise a right they do not have as ordinary citizens? The authoritarian, non-consensual nature of the assumption of such authority draws the balance of power between the people and the so-called ‘State’ into question, in my view. School—in its current form—is an institution well past its use-by date, and even less relevant tomorrow than today. The failure of the compulsory schooling idea will be revealed in a later blog, in which I argue that we are on the cusp of a significant evolutionary stage and have a chance to expose the possibilities that make up the potential futures of our species.

Bernstein refers to “a complex coding activity controlling the creation and organization of specific meanings”. I will show that the complex coding activity is socioculturally unique and that our understanding of learning and teaching are, as a result, poor. That is not to say that we are incapable of comprehending a better experience of life. Rather it is to argue that we are poorly equipped by a self-interested ‘State’ to challenge the underlying assumptions on which it builds it power base. Here again, I hold the compulsion to schooling culpable. I will show that schooling does not prepare anyone for life; but rather for a life of servitude to an ideological context—largely economic—constructed by the ‘State’. Against this backdrop, I will discuss the idea of manufactured consent, and the use of propaganda to shape the lives we are compelled to lead. If you thought there was no such thing as a conspiracy, hold onto your hat. Literacy and numeracy are at the heart of our ability to rise against assumptions and ideas inimical to our choice of life. I address both literacy and numeracy as the foundation of a new learning-teaching relationship that empowers the people, not the ‘State’.

Regarding the transmission and reception of meaning, I will show that meaning is not transmitted. Nor is it received. I will argue, instead, that it is constructed as a socio-linguistically and socioculturally sensitive response to sound-shapes encountered in our environment. Here, again, I will address the role of the so-called ‘State’ in managing the environment in such a way as to preserve something that may or may not be a choice of those directly affected by ‘State’ intervention in their environment. The role of schooling in propagandizing the environment reveals schools to be entirely artificial environments constructed for specific purposes, and not necessarily those of the people whose consent is absent from a form of social contract that engages them in compulsory schooling.

In conclusion, in this blog I set out to say something about the idea of sound-shapes. Sound-shapes are the code by which we become aware of our environment. Language is the code we use to convey sound-shapes that may be used by a recipient to construct socioculturally and socio-linguistically relevant meaning, provided that the recipient shares an understanding of the code. If the recipient of sound-shapes does not share the code or have relevant sociocultural or socio-linguistic experience, meaning can be highly problematic. Bernstein argues that meaning is both transmissible and receivable. I argue it is not. The implication of this conclusion bears on the ensuing discussion of the learning-teaching relationship, and of perceptions of how and why it matters, and to whom.

Using ‘sound-shapes’ to discuss the learning-teaching relationship enables us to enter the sociolinguistic and sociocultural worlds of those who use different language codes; those who use alphabets; those who use pictographs and syllabaries; those who use no written form; those who use sign-languages, and various scripts, including Sanskrit, and so on.  Sound-shapes keeps us focused on the idea that these are merely signs and signifiers. They carry no meaning (including phatic communion meanings derived from socio-linguistic considerations). This is an important note because it enables us to isolate learning as something unique to the individual concerned, and almost surely dependent on context, including sociocultural and socio-linguistic contexts. Such a claim lays bare the fragility of an imposed testing regime designed to test not what has been learnt but what has been taught.

From this flows the claim that the idea expressed in English by the sound-shape ‘teaching’ is universal across all cultures of the world. However, what teachers do is not universal. It is culturally relative. Teachers in Somalia do not do the same things as teachers in America. Teachers in France do not do the same things as teachers in Tibet. Something culturally relative is not, by definition, universal. This means that what teachers do is not expressed by the idea ‘teaching’. So we need to consider a number of alternative ideas in order to bring the learning-teaching relationship into sharper focus. We will do that in another blog.

Please feel free to comment on any of what you have read. These blogs are a summation of opinions only. I am sufficiently enamoured of learning to respond favourably to persuasive argument, which probably says something about how and why manufactured consent is such an insidious aspect of the relationship between the governors and the governed in this day and age.

Best Wishes

Peter

[1] B. Bernstein, from Class, Codes and Control vol. 1: Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of Language, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970; in Language and Social Context, Pier Paolo Giglioli (Ed), Penguin Books, Australia, 1980