A couple of days ago Gordon asked the following:
> A few weeks ago we were discussing "participation" in class, and the need
> many of us feel to have students contribute orally to discussion as
> evidence that they are indeed participating. Would this be an example of
> commodification of discourse?
>From my perspective, such a phenomenon could be explained in terms of
commodification, but only if the analyst provided evidence that linked it
more specifically to the concept. So, s/he would have to show that the
participation was "standardized" -- ie, that the specific content of what
was said did not really matter, just some standard act (eg, that the
student was saying something, regardless of the content); that the
participation encouraged passivity on the part of students -- eg, that
they just talked for the sake of saying something, without significant
reflection on the issues at hand; and, most importantly, that participants
misperceived the participation -- recognizing it as genuine and engaging
when in fact it was not.
Now, does such commodified classroom participation go on? In some cases,
I think so. I have published one analysis myself where I try to argue
something like this. Has anyone established that it is in fact the larger
social totality -- with the commodity form as the essential structure of this
totality -- that in fact creates this sort of classroom participation?
No. There is a large stretch from the abstract social theory to the
details of classroom talk, and I have not seen a successful bridge yet (in
my own work or elsewhere), but I would be happy to find one.
Stanton Wortham