Читать книгу Language Policy and Identity in Mauritania - El Hacen Moulaye Ahmed - Страница 11

Chapter 2

The Interplay between Language and Identity and Some Issues in Multilingualism and Multiculturalism

A third issue, which has been lurking at the edges of the topic of language policy and identity, is the interplay between the two constructs which is a central theme of this chapter beside issues in multilingualism and multiculturalism. As a complement to the first chapter in the course of clarifying language policy and identity, this chapter provides a conceptual aerial map covering a number of possible themes related to the interplay between language and identity that have been marked out along the evolution of the field. In so doing, the chapter pinpoints exactly what is meant by the phrase “nation-state” and the term “nationalism.” In so doing, the evolution of such concepts was mapped out. It is shown also that nationalism has two main types: civic and ethnic. The former originated in France and the latter in Germany.

The chapter proceeds, after that, to charting out the role of language policy in both state-building and identity construction. Decision-makers tend to opt for language as a marker that fuses the diverse people of a state. As a result, people start to define themselves based on such linguistic identity. The role of identity in language policy is also discussed. Besides, in order to understand the concepts “multilingualism” and “multiculturalism,” the chapter spells out the possible definitions and typologies of the two terms.

The Interplay between Language Policy and Identity

Defining Nation-State, Nationalism

Before pinning down the phrase “nation-state,” definitions of the terms, “nation” and “state,” can be addressed. Such step is necessary indeed since, as remarked by Michie, the coinage of nation-state indicates an appreciation of the difference between the two constructs of the hyphened phrase (2000, p. 1093). Similarly, Campbell, MacKinnon, and Stevens (2010) asserted that although the terms are used sometimes interchangeably, they also have distinct meanings (p. 32). However, before embarking on laying out the distinctions between nation and state, it is useful to show some of the instances where the two terms are used interchangeably. In international law, the term “nation” is always used interchangeably with the term “state” and the phrase “nation-state.” For example, “Article 1 of the UN Charter provides that the purposes of the inter-State organization are ‘to develop friendly relations among nations’ and ‘to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations’” (Schrijver, 1997, p. 10). Another case is the name of the United Nations. That is, the United Nations represents the whole nations of the world when the meaning is that it represents the whole states of the world or the whole nation-states of the world (Kellas, 1998, p. 3). The cases reveal the frequent use of the terms “nation,” “state,” and the phrase “nation-state,” interchangeably.

Theoretically, the terms, “nation,” “state,” and the phrase “nation-state” may be used interchangeably as the above cases unveiled; nonetheless, technically, they are different. What are the possible answers to the foundational questions of “what is a nation?” Originally, the word “nation” is derived from the Latin word “natio,” which in turn was formed from the verb “nasci,” which means birth or place of origin (Flanagan, 2008, p. 67). Tracing its development, Opello and Rosow (1999) stated that

“nation” was a derogatory term that referred to groups of foreigners from the same place whose status was below that of Roman citizens. During the Middle Ages, the word was used to designate groups of students from the same geographical locations attending Europe’s medieval universities. Because students from the same regions often took sides as a group against students from different regions in scholastic debates, the word nation came to mean an elite community of scholars who shared an opinion or had a common purpose. During the early sixteenth century, the word nation began to be applied to a whole population of people from a particular geographical locale rather than to a student elite. Entire populations were elevated and made into the bearer of sovereignty, the basis of political solidarity, and the ultimate object of loyalty. One’s national identity, therefore, came from being a member of a certain people, which was defined as homogeneously distinct in language, culture, race, and history from other peoples. Thus, nation came to have its contemporary meaning: a uniquely sovereign people readily distinguishable from other uniquely defined sovereign peoples who are bound together by a sense of solidarity, common culture, language, religion, and geographical location. (pp. 123–124, emphasis in original)

The above citation traces the term “nation” from its birth to its actual state. What is remarkable about the evolution of the term “nation” is its constant reference to shared group and geography and to some degree culture. However, Opello and Rosow’s contemporary meaning of the term “nation” is too general to the extent that it can lead the reader to coincide it with nation-states. Since our aim is to avoid falling prey to nation and nation-state interchangeable use, other scholars’ definitions to the term “nation” are worth mentioning. According to Campbell, MacKinnon, and Stevens (2010), the term “nation” refers to “a shared cultural or ethnic identity rather than to a legally recognized geographic territory” (p. 32). A typical example that explained their definition is that of the people of Navajo. In Campbell, MacKinnon, and Stevens’ words (2010) “the people of the Navajo nation, for example, share a cultural identity that does not depend upon fixed territory or outside legal recognition. Rather, their status as a nation is based upon shared historical and cultural experiences” (p. 32).

Another definition of the term “nation” is offered by Mangone. He stated that the fundamental “binding force of the nation is variously derived from a strong sense of its own history, its special religion, or its unique culture, including language. A nation may exist as an historical community and a cultural nexus without political autonomy or statehood” (1969, p. 451). The two above definitions indicate that the term “nation” points out to a people grouped together on the basis of history, culture, and consciousness. The definitions also do not refer to geography as a defining factor of the term “nation” as previously did Opello and Rosow.

According to Campbell, MacKinnon, and Stevens (2010), in academic discourses, however, the term “state” is used instead of the more commonly used “country” to refer to “an internationally recognized, politically organized, populated, geographical area that possesses sovereignty” (p. 32). They added that states are geopolitical entities with the following characteristics:

a. a fixed territory with boundaries;

b. a population;

c. a government;

d. the capacity to enter into relations with other states. (Campbell, MacKinnon, & Stevens, 2010, p. 32)

Such definition unearths that the term “state” is more general than the term “nation.” In other words, the term “state” refers to the term “nation” (group of people who share history and culture) plus government, fixed territory with boundaries, and international recognition.

By now, it becomes clear that the difference between the two terms, “nation” and “state,” rationalizes the coinage of the hyphened phrase “nation-state.” What is, then, nation-state? The definition of the phrase “nation-state” is an amalgamation of the definition of the term “nation” and that of the term “state.” It refers to a particular nation living in a state. It combines social and political ties and separates with border a group of people from a neighboring one that is subjected to different laws and rulers. In other words, the phrase “nation-state” refers to a sovereign and geographically defined territory with a government and population who share history and culture.

Griffiths (2005) offered the most thorough explanation of the characteristics that constitute the nation-state.

The nation-state is a type of politico-military rule that has a distinct, geographically defined territory over which it exercises jurisdiction. Second, it has sovereignty over a territory that is theoretically exclusive of outside interference by other nation-states. Third, it has a government composed of public institutions, offices, and roles that administers the territory and makes decisions for the people within its jurisdiction. Fourth, it has fixed boundaries marked by entry and exit points and in some cases by fences patrolled by border police and armies. Fifth, its government claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical coercion over its territory and people. Sixth, its people share, to a greater or lesser degree, a sense of nationhood (i.e., national identity). And seventh, its government enjoys, to a greater or lesser degree, the undivided obedience and loyalty of its inhabitants. (Griffiths, 2005, p. 566)

The above outlined characteristics of the nation-state set it apart from other systems such as nation and state. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the phrase “nation-state” is frequently used interchangeably with the terms “state” and “country,” observed Campbell, MacKinnon, and Stevens (2010, p. 32).

In addition to nation, state, and nation-state, nationalism is a central thread in the present study which needs to be taken apart. The rise of nationalism correlated positively with that of nation-state system, each of which correlated negatively with the domination of the Catholic Church over almost all Europe. The decline of the Catholic Church took place after the signature of the Peace of Westphalia (1648) which ended the Thirty Years War (1618–1648) that erupted in Europe. The decline led to the birth of nation-state system which was organized around many ideas among which nationalism (Campbell, MacKinnon, & Stevens, 2010, p. 33). Likewise, Smith (1998) asserted that nationalism, as a liberating force, crumbled the different “localisms of region, dialect, custom and clan, and helped to create . . . powerful nation-states. . . . It attacked feudal practices and oppressive imperial tyrannies and proclaimed the sovereignty of the people and the right of all peoples to determine their own destinies, in states of their own” (p. 1). Smith’s account on the origin of nationalism lines up with that of Campbell, MacKinnon, and Stevens. The scholars agree that the emergence of nationalism coincided with that of nation-state system. They consider the former as the sperm that led to the birth of the latter. Their accounts also indicate that the idea of nationalism was originated in Europe and after that spread into the rest of the world. In Smith’s words, raised in England and Holland, nationalism “stretches the length of Central and Latin America, pushes across southern, central, eastern, then northern Europe into Russia, India and the Far East, and then winds its way in many guises into the Middle East, Africa and Australasia” (1998, p. 1).

Having traced the roots of nationalism, what is it, then? Many answers to the question were given and are constantly added to the nationalism literature. Before introducing the answers, however, it is useful to clarify what most scholars think nationalism is not. First, nationalism is not patriotism. According to Navarro (2015), “‘while patriotism evidently is a sentiment, nationalism is not. At most, it gives rise to sentiment, perhaps to patriotic ones.’ Whereas patriotism accentuates devotion to one’s country or nation, nationalism turns devotion to the nation into programs or principles” which encompass rituals, beliefs, political action, and practices (p. 13). Clearly, patriotism is pride in or loyalty to one’s state. Nationalism, however, is not limited to such pride in or loyalty to one’s geographical border, but it goes to a devotion to the state’s properties. It is clear, then, that patriotism is part and parcel of nationalism.