Comments on Bonny Norton Peirce's "Social Identity, Investment, and Language Learning": Interpreting Data: The Role of Theory

Abstract

* In some schools of poststructuralist theory, advocates celebrate the death of the author (Foucault, 1977, p. 117). In its strong version, advocates argue that the author's intentions and objectives are not central to the meaning of a text and that the meaning of a text shifts with every reading. It is clear that Price does not support this school of poststructuralist theory because he has questioned whether his reading of my article, Social Identity, Investment, and Language Learning, (Peirce, 1995a) is a valid one. Further, he has given me, the author, the opportunity to elaborate on my research and clarify my objectives. I value this opportunity to engage in debate on postmodern thought and its relationship to the field of language learning and teaching. As an author, I am in the privileged position of determining whether Price's reading of my article is indeed a valid one. Because he raised some critical questions, there is, to some extent, a conflict of interest. I am both the accused and the judge of his critique. As I sought to distance myself from these conflicting identities and read Price's critique as a disinterested scholar, it struck me that the process I was going through served to validate further the theories of social identity and investment I was exploring in my article. My identity was multiple-I was accused, judge, and scholar. By extension, my identity also shifted over time as I reread the critique from different subject positions and with different investments. In sum, the complex relationship between me and the social world mediated my engagement with Price's text.