Editor's Note: The following piece by Pierre E. Simonvil was originally published in the February 2019 Edition of the Diversity Committee Newsletter. To read the entire issue, and to learn more about the New Jersey State Bar Association's Diversity initiatives, click here.The main goal of this article is to espouse the benefits of diversity and some of the challenges diversity initiatives face in our society.
The topic of this article, code switching, is one of the coping mechanisms I learned as a teen and in the workplace. In explanation, code switching occurs when a speaker alternates between two or more languages, or language varieties, in the context of a single conversation. More simply put, code switching is what happens when people reflexively or suddenly change the way they express themselves, typically in conformity with their audience. In practice, this is typically displayed as noticeable changes in attitude, body language and vocabulary depending on environment. Code switching can be as subtle as minor changes in someone’s dress and appearance, depending on their environment, or as drastic as whole personality shifts, with changes in diction and body language. While code switching is often viewed as just a nice way people try to bond with others, for many minorities it can become a required survival mechanism in the workplace. Unfortunately for many minorities, particularly blacks and people who come from urban areas, demonstrating their own unique cultural norms and/or vernacular in the workplace may be fatal to their careers and professional reputation. Which begs the question: Is code switching, which in some settings is mandatory, an overall benefit to minorities or good for the promotion of diversity in our society?
To answer that question, we first need to understand why so many minorities code switch in the first place. For many minorities, particularly those of urban backgrounds, code switching has become a necessary survival mechanism in the workplace, and society generally, under the arguably pretextual justification that facets of their culture are unprofessional or immoral. The conduct that is characterized as unprofessional, in my experience, usually relates to minority or urban speech patterns, music and grooming preferences. For example, in 2014, the Army proposed changes to its dress and appearance standards that sought to ban the use of natural ethnic hairstyles by women of color, under the guise that those hairstyles were somehow unprofessional or could inhibit a soldier’s ability to wear a helmet. Another example of mandatory code switching in the workplace is in the type of music that is typically deemed workplace appropriate. Ironically, although urban music is widely used today to advertise or market products and ideas, it is still mostly regarded as unprofessional in the workplace.
In a societal context, code switching is an often employed survival tool when dealing with law enforcement, and a person’s inability to effectively code switch may be fatal or discrediting. Consider, for example, the cases of Sandra Bland, who died mysteriously while in police custody, arguably due to a verbal conflict she had with her arresting officer, and Rachel Jeantel, the prosecution’s witness in the trial of George Zimmerman, whose testimony was largely discredited primarily due to her demeanor and vocabulary. Analysis of these events seems to suggest that an ability to effectively code switch may have resulted in different outcomes. Essentially, because minorities, in particular people with urban backgrounds, exist in a society that punishes or disenfranchises them for any inability to conform to the cultural standards and norms of the dominant culture, code switching is often necessary for their safety and economic mobility.
Code switching is not always mandatory, and can be a positive experience. Many people code switch to familiarize themselves with people from different cultural or ethnic backgrounds. My own experience with code switching began innocently enough, when I moved from the predominantly urban city of Philadelphia to the predominantly suburban town of Pompano Beach. To say there was some culture shock is an understatement, and finding people whom I could relate to was difficult at best. Over time, however, I made new friends who were completely unlike anyone I had grown up with. They dressed different from me, spoke differently and listened to music I had previously thought was reserved for satanic cults (punk rock and heavy metal). While these differences initially made me uncomfortable, getting out of my comfort zone afforded me an opportunity to grow and learn more about my new friends and their backgrounds.
Their music, which scared me at first, now holds a special place in my heart and music library. Although I code switched to be more relatable to my Pompano Beach friends, it was a voluntary code switch that never felt forced or disingenuous. Instead of hiding who I was, it was more like adding another layer to me.
There are other ways in which being able to effectively code switch may be beneficial to a person other than in making friends. Many conflicts with police amount to a fundamental communication failure, either on the part of the officer or the person being detained. Too often we hear that arrests turn violent because suspects were ‘disrespectful’ to police officers or otherwise behaved inappropriately. Effective use of code switching is often the only tool minorities have to prevent an arrest from becoming violent. Consider, for example, the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates in 2009. Gates, popular for his role as narrator in the PBS documentary series Finding Your Roots, had just returned from a trip to China and for some reason needed to force the door to his home open. Police were called and Gates was initially questioned as a suspect for burglarizing his own home. He was ultimately arrested for disorderly conduct. I cringe when imagining how this scenario could have played out if Gates was not incredibly articulate in the moment or could not effectively code switch.
While there are positive aspects to code switching, there are also negative aspects and unintended consequences to code switching that may outweigh its benefits. From a macrosocial perspective, ubiquitous use of code switching by certain minority groups has the potential to result in discrimination against minorities who can’t or choose not to code switch. From my experience, minorities are typically lumped into one of two categories by the dominant culture: ‘good’ ones and ‘bad’ ones. Minorities who are adept at employing code switching are labeled as good minorities, thereby unfairly stereotyping minorities who do not code switch as bad people.
Aside from the good vs. bad characterizations, or more appropriately mischaracterizations, minorities who do not code switch are often labeled as either unintelligent or non-credible. A good example of this is the aforementioned treatment of the testimony of Rachel Jeantel during the George Zimmerman trial. Her testimony was deemed non-credible by members of the jury primarily due to her demeanor, body language and vocabulary; however, the content of her testimony was not adequately considered. Code switching also can result in the suppression of discussion on minority issues and concerns because while a person is code switching, especially in mandatory code switching circumstances, they are required to espouse fidelity to the dominant culture. This is exemplified in the recent film “Sorry to Bother You.” In the film the main character, Cassius Green, finds success in a new telemarketing position by employing his “white voice;” however, this ultimately ends in unintended and disastrous consequences for Cassius. In real life, minorities who code switch are often forced to confront identity crises, and also must abandon advocating for minority concerns or risk alienating the dominant culture they have ingratiated themselves with.
After considering both the pros and cons of code switching, in my opinion it does more harm than good in promoting diversity. First, the voluntary, friendly code switching I first utilized as a teen is not the same type of experience as the forced code switching that occurs for most adult minorities. As more and more people are being forced to code switch at work, in order to remain ‘professional,’ this can result in less diversity of opinions and ideas. I say this because code switching’s ultimate conclusion is assimilation, whereby the minority culture is ultimately erased or at the very least not for display in the workplace.
The goals of diversity initiatives are the antithesis of code switching, meaning where code switching typically seeks to ingratiate the minority to the dominant culture, diversity initiatives seek to promote inclusion and mutual respect for other cultures ostensibly via the dominant culture’s appreciation for minorities. Code switching may also hamper diversity initiatives because diversity requires authenticity in order for one’s culture to be adequately demonstrated; however, code switching often requires suppressing one’s cultural identity and behaving disingenuously.
These are just this humble author’s opinions, I leave it to the readers to form their own.
Pierre E. Simonvil is a single father, solo practitioner and military veteran, in that order. His practice is varied and is based in the southern New Jersey/Philadelphia region.