The Language of Social Change for Rural Sierra Leone
The dawdling social development or the virtual lack thereof, in contemporary human society, Africa, especially, Sierra Leone, in particular, has been a constant feature on the development schema of national and international social and economic organizations. How honest these organizations and national governments are to effect authentic social change and development is up to their consciences. But from my observation and observations done by many, who view development in Africa, from a critical lens, would attest that development in Africa, Sierra Leone, in particular, in the last sixty years, has been measured at best.
As a result, the use of language as an alternate approach to rural social change and development can be of great utility because language has a constituting ad organizing power, which suggests it can develop and manage social change and social development efforts, in a complementary manner, to improve the lives of the rural people, who are my primary concern, as I advance in age and in knowledge. Social change is a relative concept and a process to social development (building infrastructures and putting in place sound social policies) applicable to who wants it, where, when, how, why and what kinds of change one wants to achieve; it can be done through negotiation, consultation, active political, planning and executing, and other forms of societal participation (women in particular); sometimes change is peaceful, other times is violently. But the former is preferable.
From a critical lens, the sluggish pace of development, notably in the rural areas of Sierra Leone has been ascribed to countless socio-economic, political and cultural problems, since independence. Unfortunately, one of the least areas of theoretic or at least, programmatic exploration has been the role of language in national development and social change. This scholarly commentary will attempt to examine some theoretical applications of language, and make recommendations, that would hopefully appeal to nonprofit organizations and the national government. This piece may enhance the current rural development thinking of organizations and the national government of Sierra Leone.
In her doctoral dissertation (2008) on sociolinguistics and interaction discourse, an African colleague, Phyllis Dako-Gyeke, argues that language plays a key role in national development through culture, since culture, a loaded term, has the ability of bringing together people to address national and community need(s). She says beyond the diversity of indigenous languages in a society, and beyond the legacy of colonialism, which suppressed and foisted the use of local languages in development, a single language can unite a community and a society because of its power to connect different regions in Africa. Her assumption is that because of the rapid increase in human population, coupled with incredibly massive geographic human movement within Africa and outside, the potential of speaking a common language creates easiness, understanding, but above all, the willingness to conduct business and start a relationship, especially as the world becomes more global today. Although globalization transcends borders, she argues, speaking and understanding a single language that is germane to others eases tension, creates trust and produces an atmosphere of interaction, which creates the unintended structure for development and social change.
The editor of the International Journal of Sociology of Language, Dr. Joshua Fishman, once said, since the sociology of language is concerned with the effect of language on society, language therefore, helps us gain trust, mobilize resources and develop communities. Language use should be done through meticulous speaking, phrasing and structuring to make the case for rural development. This argument goes to the core of one of the totemic figures in Western social criticism, Kenneth Burke, who, in his Grammar of Motives (1969) said language is larger than us humans, of which the reverse can be true, too, it is possible when we speak or play with language we are in control and because we are in control, we have the power to create possibilities?in this case rural social change; because if we have the process of change in motion, then the outcome (s), which is social development would be inevitable.
In the last 30 years, Africa?s development has been a constant theme for the United Nations, in the areas of climate change, agriculture, poverty, women and land and drought. These are very important themes to Sierra Leone, a country where 60% of the population is based in the rural areas and heavily dependent on limited natural rural resources. But how, what for and when should we use language to address these urgencies of the moment? Sadly, the theoretical paradigm employed to accomplish these social change processes and social development in the past and to a large extent today, has been dependent on the now infamous modernization model, which is scientifically based, and discount, to some extent, the role of language, rural participation and other non-scientific aspects of development. It is a prescriptive rather than participatory development experience, critics have suggested. My suggestion is to modify and use the participatory model of development to meet local context.
In sum, language (words, communication, metaphor, speech etc.) functions as a composing element in rural social change and national development, therefore, the use of one language (Krio) or multiple languages (Themne, Mende, Fullah etc.) to facilitate modern development efforts in Sierra Leone should be explored as an alternative approach to social development. It is unfortunate this is a short piece, and because of space, I can not go into the details of the step-by-step operations of language in national development.
						
						
					  
					  The dawdling social development or the virtual lack thereof, in contemporary human society, Africa, especially, Sierra Leone, in particular, has been a constant feature on the development schema of national and international social and economic organizations. How honest these organizations and national governments are to effect authentic social change and development is up to their consciences. But from my observation and observations done by many, who view development in Africa, from a critical lens, would attest that development in Africa, Sierra Leone, in particular, in the last sixty years, has been measured at best.
As a result, the use of language as an alternate approach to rural social change and development can be of great utility because language has a constituting ad organizing power, which suggests it can develop and manage social change and social development efforts, in a complementary manner, to improve the lives of the rural people, who are my primary concern, as I advance in age and in knowledge. Social change is a relative concept and a process to social development (building infrastructures and putting in place sound social policies) applicable to who wants it, where, when, how, why and what kinds of change one wants to achieve; it can be done through negotiation, consultation, active political, planning and executing, and other forms of societal participation (women in particular); sometimes change is peaceful, other times is violently. But the former is preferable.
From a critical lens, the sluggish pace of development, notably in the rural areas of Sierra Leone has been ascribed to countless socio-economic, political and cultural problems, since independence. Unfortunately, one of the least areas of theoretic or at least, programmatic exploration has been the role of language in national development and social change. This scholarly commentary will attempt to examine some theoretical applications of language, and make recommendations, that would hopefully appeal to nonprofit organizations and the national government. This piece may enhance the current rural development thinking of organizations and the national government of Sierra Leone.
In her doctoral dissertation (2008) on sociolinguistics and interaction discourse, an African colleague, Phyllis Dako-Gyeke, argues that language plays a key role in national development through culture, since culture, a loaded term, has the ability of bringing together people to address national and community need(s). She says beyond the diversity of indigenous languages in a society, and beyond the legacy of colonialism, which suppressed and foisted the use of local languages in development, a single language can unite a community and a society because of its power to connect different regions in Africa. Her assumption is that because of the rapid increase in human population, coupled with incredibly massive geographic human movement within Africa and outside, the potential of speaking a common language creates easiness, understanding, but above all, the willingness to conduct business and start a relationship, especially as the world becomes more global today. Although globalization transcends borders, she argues, speaking and understanding a single language that is germane to others eases tension, creates trust and produces an atmosphere of interaction, which creates the unintended structure for development and social change.
The editor of the International Journal of Sociology of Language, Dr. Joshua Fishman, once said, since the sociology of language is concerned with the effect of language on society, language therefore, helps us gain trust, mobilize resources and develop communities. Language use should be done through meticulous speaking, phrasing and structuring to make the case for rural development. This argument goes to the core of one of the totemic figures in Western social criticism, Kenneth Burke, who, in his Grammar of Motives (1969) said language is larger than us humans, of which the reverse can be true, too, it is possible when we speak or play with language we are in control and because we are in control, we have the power to create possibilities?in this case rural social change; because if we have the process of change in motion, then the outcome (s), which is social development would be inevitable.
In the last 30 years, Africa?s development has been a constant theme for the United Nations, in the areas of climate change, agriculture, poverty, women and land and drought. These are very important themes to Sierra Leone, a country where 60% of the population is based in the rural areas and heavily dependent on limited natural rural resources. But how, what for and when should we use language to address these urgencies of the moment? Sadly, the theoretical paradigm employed to accomplish these social change processes and social development in the past and to a large extent today, has been dependent on the now infamous modernization model, which is scientifically based, and discount, to some extent, the role of language, rural participation and other non-scientific aspects of development. It is a prescriptive rather than participatory development experience, critics have suggested. My suggestion is to modify and use the participatory model of development to meet local context.
In sum, language (words, communication, metaphor, speech etc.) functions as a composing element in rural social change and national development, therefore, the use of one language (Krio) or multiple languages (Themne, Mende, Fullah etc.) to facilitate modern development efforts in Sierra Leone should be explored as an alternative approach to social development. It is unfortunate this is a short piece, and because of space, I can not go into the details of the step-by-step operations of language in national development.

 
					 
					

