Lea Ramsdell

In “Language and Identity Politics: The Linguistic Autobiographies of Latinos in the United States,” by Lea Ramsdell, she talks about three different autobiographies by Richard Rodriguez, Ariel Dorfman and Gloria Anzaldua and how their views on their different language differ from one another. Ramsdell states the differences in how each author feels differently about their multilingual cultures. Ramsdell states that “Language is identity and identity is political in the beginning of her essay. The way I understood it was that our language, the way each of us speak, is a part of who we are. Our language defines a big part of our identity and depending one how we speak, we are all categorized in different groups and different classes as well. People who speak the same language, tend to have the same ideas and think similarly to each other therefore, our languages and identities become political.

In all three of these autobiographies, language probably plays the main role. Every one of these authors main objective was that their linguistic background had an impact on their life and made them who they are as people. For all three of the authors, language defines who they are as people. Whether they want to be viewed as Spanish speaking Americans or English speaking Chicanos, language characterizes their originality. 

Rodriguez was, in a way, forced into speaking English. His first language was Spanish and when his parents forced him to speak only English, he was a bit upset. For him, English and Spanish were on “opposite poles” (Ramsdell 169) and they couldn’t be combined. Each language meant something different to him. As for Dorfman, he sees each language as “competing for his loyalty” (Ramsdell 169). Dorfman thinks of each language as two languages that don’t go together. He wrote the same book twice, once in English and once in Spanish, which shows the respect he has for both languages. Then, you have Anzaldua who’s opinion is the exact opposite that both of the other two authors. She wanted to speak both languages and she didn’t care what anyone would say. Anzaldua’s relationship with her language is that she loves it and to her, it’s who she is. She doesn’t want to get rid of either side of it. Rodriguez and Dorfman both believe that it’s one or the other. Spanish and English are completely different and it can’t be both of them. Anzladua, on the other hand, believes that she can have both languages and use them simultaniously because she is both of them. Both languages describe who she is as a person and she can’t bear the idea of having to separate them. 

I would say that I agree with Ramsdell because language is who we are. Slang and proper language all define us at people. The way one speaks also defines where they came from, their cultural background, and those who speak similarly, think similarly and have the same morals and ideas. Language is also political in that sense. Again, the political side of language goes back to discourse communities and how each community has a different way of speaking and interacting with each other. 

Ramsdell, Lea. “Language and Identity Politics: The Linguistic Autobiographies of Latinos in the United States.” Journal of Modern Literature 28.1 (2004): 166-76. Web.