If
it is a truism that after a war the victor writes the history, then it
could be argued that the victor also chooses the language in which the
history will be written. If it is a war of the colonised against the
coloniser then the language takes on a special significance as typically
the coloniser imposes their language on the colonised.
Paulo
Freire described the way in which cultural conquest leads to the
cultural inauthenticity of those who are invaded. They then start to
take up the outlook of the invader in terms of their values, standards
and goals. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire wrote that cultural
invasion would only succeed if the invaded believed in their own
cultural inferiority. When convinced of their own inferiority they would
see the coloniser and his culture as being superior. Over time, as
people become more alienated from their own culture they would see only
positives in the culture of the invader and desire to become more and
more like them, “to walk like them, dress like them, talk like them.”[1]
However,
post-revolutionary, post-colonial situations are complex and reversal
of cultural norms a difficult process. The African writer Chinua Achebe
wrote about the problems of communication in post-colonial African
countries asserting that African writers wrote in English and French
because they are “by-products” of the revolutionary processes that led
to new nations-states and not just taking advantage of the global French
and English language book markets.[2]
This
then leads to a difficult situation with competing groups, some using
the native languages for the first time on a state level competing with
the remnants of the old order who may only be able to speak the language
of the former coloniser. As new nation states, post-revolution, usually
have more pressing practical problems that need to be dealt with, and
in a language the majority can understand, the cultural aspects tend to
be put on the back boiler until some time in the future when they may
even be forgotten about entirely.
Yet,
the regularity with which language issues crop up around the world
today is significant and points to a sharpening of political tensions.
As inter-élite competition increases, language becomes a battleground
upon which political power is augmented or maintained. The Italian
political theorist Antonio Gramsci identified the problem very clearly
when he noted that the rise in language issues meant that something more
serious was bubbling below the surface. He believed that the makeup and
widening of the governing class and their need to have popular support
led to a change in the cultural hegemony in society.[3] This usually
happens when different ethnic or language groups in society become
dissatisfied with the services and benefits the state bestows on them
and assert a new identity based on language and ethnic history.
In
most post-colonial situations language issues centre around struggle
over which languages will be taught in schools, the language used in
parliament and national media, and even placenames and personal names.
In a recent article by Aatish Taseer, he writes about the changing
politics of India where placenames have become sites of contention. He
notes the fact that there are many competing ideas of history and even
“names reflect that very basic need of having the world see you as you
see yourself.” He believes that a former self-confidence in India has
given way to a new oversensitivity and a desire to control India’s
image.[4]
Taseer sees
the source of this oversensitivity as the strengthening of Hindu
nationalism which has undergone changes in recent years. In the past
people referred to Varanasi by its multiple names including its
Muslim-era name Banaras and its ancient Sanskrit name, Kashi. The rise
of Hindu nationalism has politicized culture and, according to Taseer,
the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has been built on a weaponized idea of
history. Ignoring Muslim sensitivities as a minority ethnic group in
India, the B.J.P. president, Amit Shah, described the Muslim period as
part of a thousand-year history of slavery in Goa last year.[5]
This
monolithic view of Muslims and Muslim culture only serves to stereotype
and demonise Muslims and imply that a minority group is oppressing a
majority rather than the other way around. The maintenance of power by a
linguistic and/or political majority by imposition of its beliefs and
linguistic norms on a minority has a long history in Ireland since the
formation of the Irish Free State in 1922. While initially the
conservative nationalist forces which won the civil war after British
withdrawal (except for the northern 6 counties) brought in some measures
for the protection and promulgation of the Irish language (Gaelic), the
project declined and soon became associated with the radical
nationalist ideology of the defeated forces instead.
The
weakness of the current situation for Gaelic can be illustrated with an
example of a conservative backlash which played out in Dingle in 2011, a
popular small town in the southwest of Ireland. The difficulties and
complexities of name change could be seen in the decision to officially
rename the town 'An Daingean', its original Gaelic name. As placenames
in Ireland are in English (Anglicised versions of Gaelic names) and
Gaelic, they can become focal points for cultural conflict as Gaelic
speakers try to move away from historical colonial influence. The local
people fought back and after six years the President at the time, Mary
McAleese, reinstated the town's name back to the Anglicised version
‘Dingle’.[6] Many of the local people saw the Anglicised name as a
tourism brand and feared a loss of business through tourist confusion
with its Gaelic name.
Similar
preference for the language of the colonizer can be seen in a recent
article on Algeria in The Economist. In the article the competing
school languages of French and Arabic were joined by Berber, made even
more complicated by the lack of decision on which of its six dialects to
teach. Berber is spoken by around 25% of Algerians and was only
recognized last year despite independence from France in 1962. The
writer notes that “Algeria’s French-speaking élite prefer their old
masters’ lingo.”[7] One adviser to the education minister, Nouria
Benghebrit, stated that Arabisation was a mistake and that Algerians
“shouldn’t confuse the savage, barbaric colonialism of France with the
French language, which is a universal vehicle of science and
culture.”[8]
These
negative overtones towards Arabic and Berber have parallels in Ireland
that Gaelic speakers will recognise from Irish history. In the late
nineteenth century, the increased support for Gaelic provoked reaction
from various quarters particularly in the academic field. T. W.
Rolleston, speaking at the Press Club in 1896 described the language as
unfit for thought or consideration by educated people. Supporters of
Irish and other aspects of Gaelic culture were seen as parochial
traditionalists looking backward and trying to hold back the tide of
history.
The
struggle for the recognition of Irish as a modern language meant
suffering the indignity of a challenge from Rolleston to prove that a
piece of prose from a scientific journal could be translated into Irish
and then back into English by another translator, without loss of
meaning. This was duly carried out successfully by Hyde and MacNeill,
two leading Irish nationalists, and accepted by Rolleston. (Of course,
the strong historical connection between Arabic and science should also
be mentioned here.)
The
dubbing of Gaelic speakers as ‘parochial traditionalists’ is still used
to swipe at people who assert their linguistic rights [Gaelic is the
first official language of Ireland alongside English], won through many
decades of political and cultural struggle with the state. The
association of Gaelic with radical nationalism has always been a thorn
in the side of conservative Anglophiles in Ireland.
Linguistic
issues around the world are shaped, as in Ireland, by problems such as
negative attitudes, the difficulties of learning new, or old, languages,
and élite control of the state and the education system. As Gramsci
notes, when cultural conflicts arise we can be sure that something more
serious is happening entailing a closer look at local ideologies of
inter-élite and class struggles. In Ireland, the fortunes of the Gaelic
language rose and fell according to the cultural and ideological needs
of the ruling class. The language movements were harnessed when
considered a political threat and dismissed when weak.
This
can be seen globally where the role of language can be positive or
negative depending on the politics of the groups involved. Language is
not inherently progressive or reactionary but acts as a carrier of
culture as well as a means of communication. Openness towards diverse
and different languages and cultures in society implies openness and
tolerance towards different groups and a guard against monolithic
simplification and racist provocation. When language issues arise they
can also demonstrate that for minority groups, the survival of their
language depends just as much on social and economic issues (emigration,
unemployment, poverty) as the rights it is accorded by the state.
In
Ireland, the refusal to accord linguistic rights by British colonialism
to Gaelic speakers played an important part in the move of cultural
nationalists to political nationalism and the subsequent War of
Independence. Colonisers and conservative dominant élites both learned
that their own ‘parochial traditionalism’ could be the author of their
downfall in the play of history.
by Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin (26 August 2017)
Notes:
[1] Paulo Friere, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (London: Penguin, 1990) 122.
[2] Ali A. Mazrui, The Political Sociology of the English Language: An African Perspective (The Hague: Mouton, 1975) 218.
[3]
Antonio Gramsci, Selections From Cultural Writings. Eds. David Forgacs
and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, trans. William Boelhower (Lawrence and
Wishart, London, 1985) 183-184.
Caoimhghin
Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork
consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well
as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. (http://gaelart.net/).
His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along
with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from
around the world can be viewed country by country at
http://gaelart.blogspot.ie/.
No comments:
Post a Comment