As international school teachers, we’re used to linguistic diversity. We know students arrive with different levels of English proficiency, varying accents, and sometimes, significant “language barriers” that we work hard to help them overcome. We focus on vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and pronunciation – all essential tools for communication.
But have you ever noticed that some students, even with seemingly strong English, struggle to participate or gain traction in discussions? Or that others, whose English might be less “standard,” command attention and respect when they speak?
This is where the work of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu becomes incredibly insightful. He helps us see that communication in a social setting – like our classrooms – is about much more than just linguistic competence. It’s about power, social context, and who is granted the legitimacy to speak.
Bourdieu didn’t write a book called “The Right to Speak Theory,” but his ideas provide a powerful lens to understand why some voices are amplified while others are muted, even when the basic “language barrier” seems low.
Here are a few key Bourdieusian concepts and how they apply to our diverse classrooms:

1. Beyond Language Proficiency: “Linguistic Capital”
   It’s not just having language, it’s having the valued kind of language. Bourdieu introduced the idea of linguistic capital. This is the mastery of the “legitimate language” – the way of speaking (including vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, but also style and register) that is dominant and valued in a specific social setting.
   In our international schools, the “legitimate language” is usually standard academic English, often with specific cultural nuances influenced by the curriculum (e.g., Western-based). Students arrive with varying degrees of this specific linguistic capital, often different from the English they use at home or learned elsewhere.
   The Insight: A student’s struggles might not just be a lack of English, but a lack of the specific type of English (linguistic capital) that the school field implicitly or explicitly rewards. Their existing linguistic capital (their home language, other Englishes) might be devalued in this new market.
2. The School as a “Field” (or “Linguistic Market”)
   Bourdieu saw society as made up of different fields – relatively autonomous arenas like the art world, politics, or indeed, education. Each field has its own “game,” its own rules (often unwritten), its own hierarchies, and its own forms of capital that grant players an advantage.
   Our international school is a field. Within this field, classroom discussions, presentations, group work, and even playground interactions are specific “linguistic markets.” In these markets, certain ways of speaking and communicating are worth more than others.
   The Insight: It’s not just about can a student speak, but how they speak and is that way of speaking valued in this particular market (the classroom, the assembly, the teacher’s office). The “value” of a student’s words is judged within the power dynamics and norms of the school field.
3. The Weight of Where You Come From: “Habitus”
   A student’s habitus is their set of internalized dispositions, tendencies, and ways of seeing the world, shaped by their family background, culture, and previous experiences (including prior schooling). Habitus influences everything from how comfortable a student feels challenging an idea to their preferred way of demonstrating understanding.
   A student’s habitus includes their linguistic habitus – their ingrained way of using language and relating to communication. This might involve cultural norms about silence, directness, showing respect to elders/teachers, or the appropriate way to express disagreement.
   The Insight: A student from a background where quiet observation is valued might possess a habitus that clashes with an international school classroom where active participation is expected and rewarded. This isn’t a language problem; it’s a mismatch between ingrained ways of being (habitus) and the expectations of the field. Their habitus might not predispose them to exercise their potential “right to speak.”
4. The Subtle Power of Norms: “Symbolic Power”
   When the dominant way of speaking (the valued linguistic capital) and interacting (the aligned habitus) are seen as the “normal” or “correct” way, they exert symbolic power. This power works by making arbitrary social norms seem natural and legitimate.
   This can lead to symbolic violence, where individuals whose language or habitus doesn’t fit the norm are subtly (or not so subtly) made to feel inadequate, less intelligent, or out of place. This can significantly impact a student’s confidence and willingness to speak.
   The Insight: Students might be functionally proficient in English, but if their accent, phrasing, or communication style doesn’t match the dominant symbolic norm, they may feel their contributions lack legitimacy or won’t be taken seriously, effectively diminishing their perceived “right to speak.”
   Putting it Together: The “Right to Speak” is Earned, Not Just Given
   From a Bourdieusian perspective, the “right to speak” in a specific context isn’t just about having the ability to form grammatically correct sentences. It’s about possessing the right mix of linguistic capital, navigating the norms of the field with an attuned habitus, and overcoming the potential effects of symbolic power.
   Some students arrive having already accumulated the necessary capital and habitus to thrive linguistically and socially in the international school field. Others, despite their intelligence and potential, may find their existing capital devalued and their habitus out of sync with the field’s demands, making it harder for them to claim their “right to speak” and be heard as legitimate participants.
   What Does This Mean for Us in the Classroom?
   Moving beyond a simple “language barrier” model means:

• Valuing all Linguistic Capital: Recognize and explicitly value students’ home languages and diverse Englishes as assets, not just obstacles.
• Making the Implicit Explicit: Be aware of the unwritten rules of your classroom’s “linguistic market.” Explicitly teach the required linguistic capital (academic vocabulary, discussion protocols, presentation styles) and the expected habitus (participation norms, collaboration skills). Don’t assume students automatically know the “game.”
• Creating Inclusive Fields: Design activities and assessment that allow for diverse ways of demonstrating understanding and participating, valuing different communication styles. Create safe spaces where students feel their voice is legitimate regardless of their accent or phrasing.
• Reflecting on Your Own Habitus and Bias: Be aware of how your own linguistic habitus and position within the school field might lead you to unconsciously privilege certain ways of speaking or interacting over others.
• Seeing Beyond Proficiency: Understand that a student’s silence or struggle to engage might stem from a clash of habitus or a feeling that their linguistic capital is insufficient in this market, rather than simply a lack of English words.
  By applying Bourdieu’s insights, we can better understand the complex social forces that shape our students’ experiences. This allows us to move beyond fixing just the language and work towards creating more equitable and inclusive learning environments where every student feels they truly have the right to speak and the assurance that their voice will be heard and valued.