[LAP] The lure of linguicism/ my write up on IMLD 2018

[Zubair Torwali]

Hope you might like it.
Please click the link and read:
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/284470-the-lure-of-linguicism
The lure of linguicism
Listen
<https://app-as.readspeaker.com/cgi-bin/rsent?customerid=9520&audiofilename=the-lure-of-linguicism&lang=en_uk&readid=storydetailarea&url=>
[image: The lure of linguicism]

The term ‘linguicism’ was coined in the 1980s by Finnish linguist and
educator Tove Skutnabb-Kangas. She defined linguicism as the “ideologies
and structures that are used to legitimate, effectuate and reproduce an
unequal division of power and resources between groups, which are defined
on the basis of language”.

Paivi Gynther, another educationist, has also defined the term in her book
‘Beyond Systematic Discrimination’. According to Gynther, “…linguicism is a
matter of depriving people of power and influence due to their language”.

Linguicism can be covert and overt. The former is exemplified by the
non-use of particular languages as languages of instruction whereas the
latter can be illustrated through the prohibition of certain languages as
languages of instruction. According to Kangas, “linguicism can be open,
conscious, visible, and actively action-oriented as opposed to ‘merely’
attitudinal. Or, it can be hidden, unconscious, invisible, and passive,
typical of later phases in the development of minority education”.

Linguicism operates by stigmatising languages or dialects. It is
discrimination created by the hegemony of certain social groups over
others. Hegemony denotes the ability of a group of people to control all
social institutions and, consequently, influence the norms, values, ideas,
expectations and behaviour of the dominated group. Hegemony doesn’t involve
force alone. In fact, it goes beyond that and incorporates ideologies and
influences perceptions. In order to influence others and generate consent,
the dominated people must be made to believe that their own values, norms,
language, and culture are subordinate to those that are dominant.

People are often judged based on their social status, regional background,
ethnicity and a range of personal and social characteristics that are
simply reflected in the form of language they use. In the Pakistani
context, we can see linguicism operating in all its form. Whether covert,
overt or systematic, linguicism is a product of the dynamics of the
distribution of power within our political milieu, which is a product of
the colonial era.

The use of the rather colonial term ‘vernacular literature’ to denote the
literature produced in Indian languages during the British rule in the
Subcontinent also suggests a form of covert linguicism. Our political
rhetoric and social discourse quite often abhors colonialism. But we forget
that its legacy is still quite prevalent in our attitude and policy in the
form of “ideologies and structures”.

A form of linguicism that is accompanied by racism has been very overt on
the state level since the inception of Pakistan. One language was granted
prestige over all others as there was an obsession to build a homogeneous
nation at the expense of diversity. The official policy did not allow any
other language to be recognised by the state. All other Pakistani languages
were stigmatised as ‘provincial’ and ‘regional’ or were accorded labels
like ‘Hinduised’ or ‘profane’. The language of a majority of Pakistanis
before 1970 was labelled ‘profane’ merely because of its script and
folklore, even though a script is just a physical representation of the
sounds and structures of a language.

The struggle for a separate homeland for Muslims in United India could not
diminish the ethnic diversity within Muslim society. Resentment towards one
language as the single marker of Muslim identity across India began as
early as the 1930s. However, these hostilities were not as overt then as
they became after the creation of Pakistan and India.

In Pakistan, the prejudice against all other languages other than Urdu and
English exists even today. Almost all the major educational reforms and
policies between 1947 and 2017 have maintained linguistic discrimination
and imposed a form of linguistic imperialism by denying a majority of
children the right to education in their own language. Another example of
linguicism in Pakistan is the box that is marked as ‘other’ or contains the
‘zero digit’ in the census data form in our national census database. The
overt linguicism by the state has given origin to a mass of negative
attitudes or covert linguicism in our society, which is so starkly diverse
on ethnic and religious lines.

The speakers of non-dominant languages – languages that are either not
institutionalised or known to many people – often complain about being
mocked by speakers of dominant languages.

Privileged social groups have always been stigmatising the less advantaged
and marginalised groups. Pakhtuns are mocked for their seemingly peculiar
way of speaking Urdu. This is so common that even our electronic media
doesn’t think twice before ridiculing them for the way they speak the
national language.

The narrative that pushes for ‘one nation with one ideology and identity’
has overwhelmingly labelled any movement for the revival of language and
identity as ‘anti-state’ or ‘treacherous’. Movements in NWFP (today’s
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) and Sindh were dubbed as ‘separatist’, ‘anti-Pakistan’
and ‘anti-Islam’. Pashto was maliciously dubbed as the ‘language of hell’.
This has been so beautifully rebuffed by Amir Hamza Baba, a famous Pashto
poet, in the following verse: Wai Aghyaar Chi Da Dawzakh Jaba Da/ Za Ba
Jannat Ta Da Pakhto Sara Zam (The opponents say that it is the language of
hell/ I will go to heaven with Pashto).

Pashto and the other majority languages aren’t the only ones to be
frequently stigmatised by these language groups. Minority languages and
practice are also relegated to the lowest strata of our social landscape. A
renowned Pashto poet and researcher (now deceased) once made disparaging
remarks against my mother language, saying that no books had been written
in it.

Another example of the prevailing linguicism among our academia and
intelligentsia is the practice of declaring all languages – except the five
major ones – as ‘dialects’.

How do we deal with linguicism? This is a question that we need to
repeatedly ask ourselves as it is not only a question of politics but of
human rights as well. Linguicism is as much a violation of human dignity as
racism and sexism are.

Every year, we observe International Mother Language Day on February 21 to
remind people about the value of cultural and linguistic diversity and the
need to not only preserve it but to celebrate it in the interest of
creating a pluralistic and plurilingual society.

Questions surrounding language are equally relevant in philosophy,
politics, ethnography and anthropology as well as in linguistic and
communication studies. Since it is the “sum total of all that humans
experience as species”, as explained by Walt Whitman, “language is not an
abstract construction of the learned, or of dictionary makers, but is
something arising out of the work, needs, ties, joys, affections, tastes,
of long generations of humanity, and has its bases broad and low, close to
the ground”.

The writer heads an independent

organisation dealing with education and development in Swat.

Email: ztorwali at gmail.com


-- 
*____________*

*Zubair Torwali*

*Executive Director*
*IBT (Idara Baraye Taleem-o-Taraqi)*

 (ادارہ برائے تعلیم و ترقی (ا ب ت)
------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zubair_Torwali

___________
Researcher;
*Freelance contributor;*
The News, Dawn, Daily Times,
The Friday Times
*_________________*
Cell: +92(0)311 5000233
         + 92(0)3469196074
Twitter: @zubairtorwali
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lap/attachments/20180223/15b13b7b/attachment.htm>