Introduction
Discourse communities are groups of individuals who share common goals, values, and communication practices, often developing specialised language and behaviours unique to their collective identity (Swales, 1990). Within the field of English Composition, studying discourse communities offers valuable insights into how language shapes and is shaped by social interactions. One such intriguing community is that of surfers, a group bonded by their passion for riding waves and often perceived as having a laid-back, nature-centric ethos. This essay explores the surfing discourse community, examining its characteristics, communicative practices, and cultural significance. By drawing on academic frameworks and relevant examples, the essay argues that the surfing community exemplifies a distinct discourse community through its shared language, values, and resistance to mainstream cultural norms. The discussion will first outline the theoretical framework of discourse communities, before delving into the specific linguistic and cultural elements of the surfing world, and finally considering the implications of this identity in broader societal contexts.
Theoretical Framework: Understanding Discourse Communities
To contextualise the surfing community, it is essential to first define the concept of a discourse community. John Swales (1990), a seminal figure in this area, proposed six criteria that characterise such communities: a common set of public goals, mechanisms for intercommunication, participatory mechanisms for providing information, utilisation of specific genres, a specialised lexis, and a threshold level of expertise among members. These criteria provide a structured lens through which to analyse groups like surfers. A discourse community is not merely a social group but a network where language functions as a tool for inclusion and identity formation (Gee, 1999). For instance, members often use jargon or specific expressions to signal belonging, a feature particularly evident in subcultures with unique lifestyles. This framework is critical for understanding how surfers, despite their geographic dispersal, maintain a cohesive identity through shared communicative practices. While Swales’ model offers a robust starting point, it is worth noting that some critics argue it may not fully account for the fluidity of modern, digitally connected communities (Porter, 1992). Nevertheless, it remains a foundational tool for this analysis.
Characteristics of the Surfing Discourse Community
Applying Swales’ criteria, the surfing community clearly fits the definition of a discourse community. First, surfers share common goals, primarily centred around the pursuit of ideal surfing conditions and personal or collective mastery of wave-riding skills. This is often expressed through a deep respect for nature and a commitment to environmental stewardship, as seen in organisations like Surfers Against Sewage in the UK (SAS, n.d.). Secondly, the community employs specific mechanisms for communication, such as surf magazines (e.g., Surfer or Carve), online forums, and social media platforms where members exchange forecasts, tips, and stories. These platforms also serve as participatory mechanisms, allowing novices and experts alike to engage in discussions, thereby fulfilling Swales’ third criterion.
Furthermore, the surfing community relies on distinct genres, including surf reports, documentaries, and competition commentaries, which are tailored to their interests. Perhaps most notably, surfers have developed a specialised lexis—terms like “gnarly,” “stoked,” “wipeout,” and “barrel” are not only functional but also emblematic of insider status. These linguistic markers create a barrier for outsiders while fostering a sense of camaraderie among members. Finally, the community includes a spectrum of expertise, from “grommets” (young or beginner surfers) to seasoned professionals, with knowledge often passed down informally at beaches or through mentorship. This hierarchical yet accessible structure aligns with Swales’ notion of a threshold level of membership, illustrating the community’s depth and inclusivity.
Cultural Identity and Resistance in Surfing Discourse
Beyond linguistic and structural elements, the surfing discourse community is deeply rooted in a distinct cultural identity, often positioned in opposition to mainstream societal norms. Surfing culture emerged prominently in the mid-20th century, particularly in coastal areas of the United States, Australia, and later the UK, as a countercultural movement rejecting materialism and promoting freedom (Ford and Brown, 2006). This ethos is reflected in the community’s language, which often prioritises experiential and spiritual connections over competitive or commercial aims. For example, phrases like “living the dream” or valuing a “soul surfer” mindset—focusing on personal fulfilment rather than accolades—highlight a resistance to capitalist structures.
However, this idealism is not without contradictions. The commercialisation of surfing, through brands like Quiksilver or Billabong, has introduced tensions within the community, as some members critique the commodification of their lifestyle while others embrace sponsorships and competitions (Ford and Brown, 2006). This internal debate demonstrates a limited but present critical approach within the community, as members negotiate their values against external pressures. In the UK context, surfing communities in Cornwall and Devon, for instance, often balance preserving local traditions with the economic benefits of surf tourism. Such dynamics reveal the complexity of maintaining a unified discourse in the face of globalisation, a challenge that arguably tests the boundaries of Swales’ original model.
Communication Beyond Language: Non-Verbal Practices
Another dimension of the surfing discourse community lies in its non-verbal communication practices, which complement its linguistic features. Surfing is inherently physical, and much of its culture is conveyed through actions rather than words—think of the “shaka” hand gesture, a symbol of aloha spirit and camaraderie originating from Hawaiian surf culture. Additionally, the choice of equipment, clothing, and even the style of surfing (e.g., longboard versus shortboard) communicates one’s identity and status within the community. These non-verbal cues serve as a form of discourse, reinforcing inclusion and exclusion in subtle yet powerful ways (Gee, 1999). For example, a novice wearing inappropriate gear might be immediately identifiable, while a skilled surfer executing complex manoeuvres signals expertise without uttering a word. While academic literature on non-verbal aspects of discourse communities remains somewhat underdeveloped, these elements are crucial to understanding the full scope of surfing communication.
Conclusion
In summary, the surfing discourse community exemplifies Swales’ criteria through its shared goals, specialised language, and structured yet accessible participation mechanisms. Its cultural identity, rooted in countercultural values, further distinguishes it, though tensions surrounding commercialisation highlight internal complexities. Moreover, the integration of non-verbal practices enriches the community’s communicative framework, underscoring the multifaceted nature of discourse. This analysis not only affirms the applicability of discourse community theory to subcultures like surfing but also suggests broader implications for how language and identity intersect in niche groups. For English Composition studies, such explorations illuminate the power of language in shaping belonging and resistance, offering fertile ground for further research into how digital spaces might evolve these dynamics. Indeed, as surfing continues to grow globally, understanding its discourse could inform broader discussions on cultural preservation versus adaptation in an increasingly interconnected world.
References
- Ford, N. and Brown, D. (2006) Surfing and Social Theory: Experience, Embodiment and Narrative of the Dream Glide. Routledge.
- Gee, J.P. (1999) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. Routledge.
- Porter, J.E. (1992) Audience and Rhetoric: An Archaeological Composition of the Discourse Community. Prentice Hall.
- Surfers Against Sewage (n.d.) About Us. Available at: https://www.sas.org.uk/about-us/ [Accessed 10 October 2023].
- Swales, J.M. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.
[Word Count: 1023, including references]
