This paper explores the discursive and semiotic construction and presentation of notions of family, as revealed through a study of two high socio-economic status, multinational, multilingual families resident in the UK, post-Brexit. The place of language and language materiality (Cavanaugh and Shankar, 2017) in this process is considered, as are the (language) socialization (Ochs and Schieffelin, 2017) of the families' children and the latter's agentive role. The importance of elite languages and of elite multilingualism per se, not only as forms of cultural capital but also as characteristics of habitus, is revealed. However, I take the stance that not only spoken language, but also paralinguistic features and material objects, are essential parts of the family members' semiotic repertoire, and these too are explored. Through the families' language socialization practices, and the material culture of their homes, they created a habitus (Bourdieu, 1993) that reflected not simply their high socio-economic status, but also their cosmopolitanism (Beck, 2012; Werbner, 2008) and their belief in (language) ideologies that in turn align with the notion of the neoliberal self (Urciuoli, 2008). Furthermore, through their semiotic repertoire, family members presented a way of being that was identifiable both to them, and to those around them, as uniquely that of 'our family'. I consider how the practices and ideologies of the present informed, and were informed by, the families' narratives of their past and their orientations towards the future. Taking a critical stance (Heller et al, 2018), I explore the essential role of (language) socialization within the family in the socio-economic stratification of society. I reveal how the participants' trust in the deterministic potential of the dispositions and orientations into which they were socializing their children, the sense of agency afforded by their Bourdieusian habitus, and the capital at their disposal, created an enacted belief that through the 'right' choices and (language) socialization practices today, 'our family' could (would?) win tomorrow. The research material was collected ethnographically through long-term participant observation, in order to better understand language practices and ideologies enacted in everyday ritual. The methodological implications of this will be discussed.
References :
Beck, U., 2012. "Redefining the sociological project: The cosmopolitan challenge". Sociology,vol.46, no.1: 7-12.
Bourdieu, P., 1993. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Cavanaugh, J. R. and Shalini Shankar, 2017. Toward a Theory of Language Materiality. In J. R. Cavanaugh, J. R. and S. Shankar (Eds), Language and Materiality: Ethnographic and Theoretical Explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 1-26. doi: 10.1017/9781316848418.
Heller, M. Sari Pietikäinen, and Joan Pujolar, 2018. Critical Sociolinguistic Research Methods: Studying Language Issues That Matter. New York: Routledge.
Ochs E. and Bambi Schieffelin, 2017. Language socialization: an historical overview. In Duff P. and May S. (Eds) Language Socialization. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. New York, NY: Springer.
Urciuoli, B., 2008. "Skills and Selves in the New Workplace". American Ethnologist vol. 35, no. 2: 211–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1425.2008.00031.x.
Werbner, P. (Ed.), 2008. Anthropology and the New Cosmopolitanism: Rooted, Feminist and Vernacular Perspectives. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003084617.
