stands out in that the very idea of search and effect is more or less absent from it, so that the discourse which obtains on that market differs in form, as we have noted, from that of public exchanges in cafes, etc.: it is in the logic of privation rather than rejection that this discourse is defined in relation to the legitimate discourse. As for the dominant markets, public and formal or private, they pose such difficult problems for those who are the most economically and culturally deprived that, if one limited oneself to that definition of speech forms based on the social characteristics of speakers which is implicitly adopted by the defenders of 'popular speech', one would have to say that the most frequent form of this speech is silence. In fact, the contradiction that arises from the need to confront dominant markets without capitulating to the pursuit of correctness is resolved, once again, according to the logic of the division of labour between the sexes. Since it is accepted (and above all by women, although they may pretend to deplore it) that a man is defined by the right and the duty to be true to himself, which constitutes his identity (‘that’s the way he is’) and that he can rest content with a silence which enables him to preserve his virile dignity, it is often incumbent upon women, socially defined as pliable and submissive by nature, to make the effort necessary to confront dangerous situations, like meeting the doctor, describing symptoms and discussing the treatment with him. sorting things out with the teacher, or the social security people, etc.22 It therefore follows that the ‘mistakes' which spring from an unfonunate pursuit of correctness or a misguided desire for distinction and which, like all deformed words, especially medical ones, are mercilessly highlighted by the perils bourgeois -and the grammar books of 'popular speech' - arc mostly made by women (who may be mocked by ‘their’ men - which is yet another way of suggesting that women 'by nature’ create fuss and embarrassment).23
In fact, even in this case, manifestations of docility are never stripped of ambivalence and always threaten to become aggressive ar the slightest snub, the merest sign of irony or haughtiness, which turns them into obligatory homages to statutory dependence. The person who, in entering into a social relationship which is too unequal, adopts too obviously the appropriate speech and manner, is liable to be constrained to think and to experience the respect which ls willingly accorded to the other as obligatory submissiveness or self-interested servility. The image of the servant, who must conspicuously display his conformity to the norms of verbal propriety and proper dress, haunts all relations between those who are dominated
and those who are dominant, and notably in the exchanges of services, as is shown by the virtually insoluble problems posed by the matter of ‘remuneration’. That is why the ambivalence towards the dominant and their life-style, so common among men who perform service roles - who hover between the inclination to anxious conformity and the temptation to bring the dominant down a peg by using the familiarities that put them on an equal footing - undoubtedly represents the truth and the limit of the relation which the men most deprived of linguistic capital, and doomed to either coarseness or servility, maintain with the dominant mode of expression.24 Paradoxically, it is only on occasions whose solemnity justifies them, in their eyes, in turning to the most noble register without feeling ridiculous or servile - for example, to express love or show sympathy in bereavement - that they can adopt the most conventional forms of speech, but in their minds the only suitable one for saying serious things: that is, in the very situation when the dominant norms require that one should abandon conventions and ready-made phrases in order to show the force of one's sincerity and feeling.
It thus appears that the linguistic and cultural productions of dominated individuals vary profoundly according to their inclination and their aptitude to benefit from the regulated liberties offered by free markets or to accept the constraints imposed by dominant markets. This explains why, in the polymorphous reality which one discovers by considering all the speech forms produced for all the markets by all the categories of producers, everyone who believes they have a right or a duty to speak of the ‘people’ can find an objective prop for their interests or fantasies.
Part II