1
Katie Mundinger Mundinger
COM 101 06
Language, Education, and Class
The question isnt, Why do we communicate? The question is, How do we
communicate? We communicate in person, through television, radio, and the Internet,
so why are there so many miscommunications between friends, family, and the world?
Education is one of the most effective ways of learning how to communicate with
others. We learn techniques in school and create social networks outside of class,
however the education one receives varies widely. Factors such as status, location, and
level of education contribute to language, social, and personal barriers. The procedures
of communication learned in school also differ, depending on where we live. The
knowledge and manner in which one communicates varies due to the many variations in
what we learn, where we learn, and how much education one receives. For example, not
everyone knows how to analyze a written message or is able pick up on social cues that
go along with speech. While the knowledge of punctuation, grammar, correct use of
language, and the differences between prose and poetry may differ between social
classes, they are all essential for communicating because the way something is said or
written can dramatically change its meaning. Our education system has to be held more
responsible for teaching youth in all social classes understand the differences between
writing and speech and how to use them accordingly.
In A Bunch of Marks the author, Richard Mitchell, states that the point of
discursive prose is to convey logic, order, and coherence, and that writing is simply used
to copy things down for memory. The purpose of speech is completely opposite; it has
emotion and is easily interpreted by people because of body language and other social
cues. Writing cannot convey these emotions even with the use of punctuation and other
Mundinger 2
helpers such as underline, bold, and italics. Mitchell says that writing is a technology
and speech is an art. Communication often gets muddled between speech and writing
because the two differ so much that their meanings can be completely opposite. Mitchell
observes that without an education to teach us clear, coherent writing our minds never
mature because writing leaves a trail of thought that we can retrace and so discover
where we have been stupid. (pg. 40) Using an analogy to football, Mitchell says that
there is no rule that one cant grab a football and run to Oshkosh anytime he pleases, but
that wouldnt be considered playing football. This is the same theory that there is no
rule that writing has to be logical, orderly, and coherent but if its not, it wont be
considered prose. Mitchell reverts back to education and continues to make his point
that if we cannot make statements logically, clearly, and coherently, then we cannot
think and make knowledge. People who cannot put strings of sentences together in good
order cannot think. An educational system that does not teach the technology of writing
is preventing thought. (pg. 46) Again, he means that without an education, we will
never progress, we will never be able to communicate our thoughts to others, and well
never truly understand what other people are actually trying to say.
In the introduction of his book, Analyzing Prose, Richard Lanham focuses on
the rules of prose and its differences from speech/poetry. Throughout his piece Lanham
complains that the same structure we are taught to write in, C-B-S, we are taught to
ignore when reading literature. The C-B-S structure includes clarity, brevity, and
sincerity, all of which he criticizes thoroughly. Clarity, Lanham says, refers not to
words on a page but to responses, yours or your readers. And the writer has to write
Mundinger 3
words on a page, not ideas in a mind. (pg. 2) So for a student in a classroom to be clear
in their writing they need to figure out their message, the effect it will have on their
audience, and then how to write their piece so they convey the best meaning. The same
goes for brevity; the length of writing depends on the message and the audience. Time
may be the same for everyone, but it is different to each individual. Lanham goes on to
explain that sincerity is the trickiest out of the C-B-S structure. If everyone knew
exactly what everyone else was thinking at any given time, there would be mass chaos
and nothing good would come out of that much communication. So how do we balance
the amount of honesty we use in our papers? Students learn to be sincere to the teachers
standard and their writing ends up suffering because theyre not being true to
themselves.
Lanham says that although we are taught to keep within strict a guideline when
writing, those are hardly qualities found in great works of literature. Texts we are given
to read and analyze are more creative, have an individual style, and seem more poetic
than anything we are allowed to write in school. These discrepancies, Lanham says, are
what confuse kids and result in more uneducated adults. Of course, when people are
uneducated there seems to be a lot more miscommunication between people.
Lanham focuses a lot of his introduction on an analogy between cars, language,
and status. When Ford first came out with the Model T, it came in the color black and
people were satisfied, but when GM produced the same thing in various colors people
began customizing their cars and changing them to make them unique. People were no
longer interested in having a car for the purpose of getting from point a to point b.
Mundinger 4
To think of prose only within the C-B-S framework encourages a simplistic practicality
which can have disastrous results in the practical world. (pg. 8) With writing, Lanham
says that teaching kids to keep within the strict guidelines of C-B-S will eventually help
them lose their creativity all together. The different colors of the car symbolize the
uniqueness of each individuals writing style, which we simply arent allowed to
express.
In Paul Fussells An Anatomy of the Classes, Fusell defines each of the nine
social classes that people are divided into. Each class has certain characteristics that set
it apart from the others. For example, the Top Out of Sight class is so rich that they are
completely hidden from the rest of the world. We know very little about them since they
stay away from the media and live in houses deep into the woods. The Bottom Out of
Sight class is completely opposite and at the same time somewhat similar. They have
absolutely no money and live on the streets, but are also completely ignored by society.
They tend to have a very low intelligence level because of little to no schooling. Fussell
also describes the seven other classes in great detail. Their characteristics range from
smart to rich to attention-hogs to wannabees to working class people. This huge range
of classes may be one of the biggest problems in communication today. One thing
Fussell mentions for every class is education. Most of the classes have had some sort of
education, but the lowest classes have never gone through formal schooling and many of
the lower-middle class may not care enough. Even though the richer groups have had
educations, their egos are huge and many times they become ignorant to other groups
around them. With such huge gaps in intelligence, the ability to communicate
Mundinger 5
effectively between classes becomes increasingly more difficult with each step. When
people live so differently, it is hard to understand each others language, ideas, thoughts,
and opinions. Other challenges people face is making decisions together. Each person
bases their choices off what they have personally been through or witnessed, which
varies from social class to class. These situations often end in stress, arguing, and
stubbornness.
All three of the authors recognize barriers in communication between people
and point them out in different ways, which can all be related back to education.
Mitchell says that miscommunication occurs when people misinterpret prose because the
same emotion cant be felt through reading words as they can through speech. Lanham
says that since we are not all taught the same way and that through certain teaching
methods we are losing parts of our individuality, we have different ideas on how to
correctly convey a message. Fussells description of the social classes tells us that he
believes our miscommunications come from lack of knowledge and social ability to
understand one another. The three authors agree that education level and the way we are
taught have plenty to do with communication levels in society.
Communication isnt a one-way deal; it takes two parties to make it work or
fail. With the differences in education level, social status, and teaching styles, conflict is
part of our daily lives all around the world. By being more aware of these differences,
people will find it easier to communicate with others. Although our education levels
may not be exactly the same, discussing things among different groups of people in
many different mediums, groups can begin to effectively share ideas and create positive
Mundinger 6
social connections. Speeches and prose are only two of the things that need to be
clarified for youth in school, but the knowledge of language is a pathway to everything
involving communication in life.