UNITY IN PLURALITY NEVILLE ALEXANDER

Introductory remarks

 !ke e: /xarra //ke, written in the Khoisan language of the /Xam people, literally meaning diverse people unite. […]. On a collective scale it calls for the nation to unite in a common sense of belonging and national pride - unity in diversity. (www.info.gov.za)

 It captures one of the most pervasive phenomena of the late 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries, i.e., the rapid hybridization or, if you wish, mixing, of the people that make up national states.

 This phenomenon is the direct result of the revolutions in telecommunications, air travel and, more fundamentally, the globalization of the world economy and of the concomitant aspects of social life.

 The exact reverse of that which used to be the norm in Western Europe and other major states in the North. The “Risorgimento” notion of the nation state as consisting of “one people, one territory, one language, one culture” has, as it were, been turned on its head.

 This phenomenon is the direct result of the revolutions in telecommunications, air travel and, more fundamentally, the globalization of the world economy and of the concomitant aspects of social life.

 The exact reverse of that which used to be the norm in Western Europe and other major states in the North. The “Risorgimento” notion of the nation state as consisting of “one people, one territory, one language, one culture” has, as it were, been turned on its head.  The modern state is a “national” rather than as a “nation” state. This term describes the tension between a single super-ordinate entity, which is still called “the nation” and the reality of cultural, linguistic and other diversities.

 The ecological movement has forced us to pay urgent attention to an even more fundamental dimension of the importance of diversity and the trap of monocultural notions of society.

 This insight has led to quite unexpected and surprising revisions of political and ideological positions that used to be common sense in the 19th and 20th centuries.

The significance of linguistic diversity

 The existence of many languages is both the “fate” (Anderson 1983) and the salvation of the human species. Globally, depending on which definitions one works from, the scholarly consensus is that some 6,000 languages exist today.

 The story of the tower of Babel in the Book of Genesis is essentially, about hubris, about vaulting ambition tainted by a misconception of the nature of power.

 It is my view that the global elites ostensibly representing the whole of humanity are, today, once again faced with the possibility that the actions they undertake as the result of their myopic view of power, rather than reinforcing the hegemonic position of English, “the global language”, are setting off counter-hegemonic forces which will, quite unintentionally, entrench the position of many of the 6,000 languages referred to previously.  Unilingualism is an unsustainable, artificial condition of the human species and a self-correcting cultural impulse restores the balance as a matter of course, i.e., if we take a long enough view of social development.

 The well-known British historian Eric Hobsbawm (2000: 125) makes this point trenchantly in his consideration of “the new century”: […]. (The) babel of languages in the world is an essential limitation on globalization, and the increase in education and literacy will render this problem particularly acute for the purposes of the world’s uniformity. The idea that one day the entire world will speak English seems utopian to me; it is something that will not happen. Multilingualism, by definition, is an obstacle to globalization …”  Which languages will survive the onslaught of global English?  The self-evident answer to the question is that, in general, only those can survive which have been incarnated in a written form.  Of these, again, those are most likely to survive which have a relatively large actual or potential readership, except where religious or some other ideology supervenes and eliminates the effects of the market.  Elegant formulation by the Director of the UNESCO Centre of Catalonia and President of Linguapax, Miquel Angel Essomba (2010:247): […] (Peace-building) is achieved through the conditions created and recreated by culture. It is no coincidence that we use the term ‘culture of peace’ when referring to these issues. Ultimately, that is the true purpose of UNESCO’s mission: winning the battle for peace means transforming people’s cultures. Within this cultural transformation, language plays a critical role. Language is a culture’s heart, the powerful engine that pumps out a people’s interpretations and meanings in the form of silences and words. That is why languages are so important in the process of building a culture of peace.

 The maintenance and promotion of multilingualism is essential in the modern world because of its implications for (cultural) Diversity; (economic) Development; (political) Democracy; (educational) Didactics; and (human) Dignity.

Five dimensions of Linguistic Diversity

 Biocultural diversity, including, naturally, linguistic diversity, is essential in order to ensure the survival of the human species on planet earth. The most detailed work in this area has been carried out by Terralingua, inspired by the commitment and vision of scholars such as Skutnabb-Kangas, Maffi and others.  Their approach and some of their conclusions have recently been subjected to a searching critique by, among others, Mufwene (2008) and it is clear from the riposte by Skutnabb-Kangas (2009) that the next few years will witness a hopefully extremely productive polemic, one which will inform and give direction to the work of sociolinguists and applied linguists.  A policy of functional multilingualism in the workplace maximises economic efficiency and productivity and has incalculable cost-benefit advantages over a policy of dominant-language monolingualism in the workplace in multilingual settings. In this context, it is important to state that it is not so-called monolingualism but, in fact, high levels of literacy, regardless of the number of languages involved, which characterise the most successful polities in the era of the “knowledge society”.

 Without a democratic language policy involving the use of first or home languages as widely as possible in all spheres of society and economy, democracy remains a dead letter in linguistically diverse, i.e., in most, societies, since participation in decision-making processes tends to be confined to elite layers with proficiency in the dominant languages or varieties.  Whether or not national and federal states make provision in their governance arrangements for the use of (arithmetically) minority languages to be used in appropriate contexts can be said to be the litmus test of their democratic credentials. Being able to use the language(s) one has the best command of in any situation is an empowering factor and, conversely, not being able to do so is necessarily disempowering. To be denied the use of this language is the very meaning of oppression.  Mother tongue or, in some circumstances, mother tongue-based bilingual education is the most effective method of educating the young. This fact is all the more important in the context of a perceived crisis of literacy learning, since we know that children can learn to read and write two (and, in individual cases, even more) languages at the same time.  Those who oppose this approach are usually either unaware of or unimpressed by the very obvious relationship between language use and social stratification in linguistically diverse polities. For, while it is true that anyone can learn in any language that s/he has sufficient command of, it is equally true – and will remain so for the foreseeable future – that for the vast majority of people on earth that language is what we call the “mother tongue”.  Since language, specifically the language(s) of primary socialisation, is the subsoil in which individual and social identities are grounded, depriving a person of the free and spontaneous use of his or her mother tongue constitutes a violation of a fundamental human right and an assault on one’s dignity. Any systematic denial of the exercise of this right by tyrannical or laisser-faire regimes can lead to serious civil conflict.

The South African “model”

 National states are the result of historical processes and they tend to change in accordance with the ebb and flow of class struggles. For this reason, even though certain generalisations are possible, we cannot read off directly “solutions” for any national question from the experience of another national state.  The possibility of national unity arises on the basis of the instrumental features of any national identity, i.e., the structural reasons for the interdependence of the population inhabiting any territory on which capitalist state formation has occurred.

 The tension between class antagonism and the need to earn a living in the case of the working classes and profit in the case of the owning classes does not, except under the rare conditions that give rise to social revolution, dissolve this interdependence and, thus, for most people, the meaningfulness of life in the particular national entity.

 For a growing percentage of people in modern capitalist states, the political community known as the nation is reinforced by the juridical badge of nationality symbolised by the national passport, a fact that is of vital importance in a globalising world, where travel across many frontiers is becoming the norm.

 The sentimental aspects of national identity, which is what most of the debates, certainly in South Africa, are focused on, are difficult to deal with in a “rational” mode, since so much of the protagonists’ multiple identities seem to them to be given, i.e., autonomous and non-material or “cultural”.

 Normally, these features are projected through all the different ways in which people have come to cope with the imperatives of everyday life within the groups that have been historically and socially constructed.

 Re-imagining these “groups” or communities implicates radical changes in everyday practices, beliefs, prejudices and other attitudes. It involves, in other words, a certain disruption of cherished “comfort zones”.

 In South Africa, for example, moving out of the racial cage of being “an Afrikaner” or “a Coloured” will involve, among many other things, learning a Bantu language. This is the reason why a democratic language policy, which includes language acquisition planning in crèches and schools, is such a pivotal issue for the next two or three generations of post-apartheid South African children.

 Many initiatives by civil society and government are possible if the commitment to a non-racial South African nation is to be realised. If, however, this vision is absent, we will inevitably stumble into the jungle of racial conflict and the fragmentation, rather than the expansion, supersession and transcendence of the national state.

 Once again, we would confirm the wisdom of the Proverbs where the sage asserts: Where there is no vision, the people perish!  ------------------------------------------------------------ National Identity and sub-National Identities

 There is an emerging consensus among social science scholars in South Africa that what has to be managed carefully over the next few decades and generations is the optimal relationship between national (also – because of “globalisation” - continental, pan-African) identity and sub-national identities, which are a necessary aspect of every individual’s shifting set of multiple identities.  Because of the recent history of the country, all identities are in a state of flux; the dualism of all social phenomena, sub-national identity in this case, is manifest in the identity crises so many are experiencing. The virtual fragmenting of the Afrikaner identity, formerly considered to be as solid as “granite”, is the most obvious example but the same thing is happening in most other communities.  The outbreak, in May 2008, of what are described in the official version as “unexpected” xenophobic violence against people of other African and some Asian provenance has added a note of urgency to this entire debate and, thus, to the research and analytical work of the social science community.  Given the history of South Africa, it is clear that any sub-national identities based on the concept of “race” will, and should, be discouraged. It is, therefore, urgent that the existing racial basis of the policies of affirmative action and “Black” economic empowerment be reconceptualised against the background of an overall analysis of the politics of identity.  Establishing the continuity between tradition and modernity is essential if the latter is not always to be experienced as something alien that is transmitted in a foreign language, i.e., English. Whether and to what extent any “traditional leaders” have a role to play in this process will have to be cleared up in democratic and public discussion.  With respect to all other sub-national identities, be they based on language, religious belief, region, gender or any other important social marker of difference, it is sufficient to ensure that they do not acquire the kind of divisive dynamic that “race” has had in South African history.

 In the context of a multicultural and multilingual nation, it is equally important that statecraft discourage the intersection of ethnic consciousness and vested economic interest. This is invariably the beginning of all social conflict in such polities.  A final point: the rainbow metaphor, besides its racial connotation of co-existing colour units, is inappropriate on many different grounds as the iconic means of projecting the new South Africa. That it is at the level of perception no more than an optical illusion is already appreciated by most South Africans, especially after the xenophobic incidents of 2008.

 South Africans should be encouraged to adopt the Garieb metaphor of major tributaries that flow together to constitute the new mainstream culture and also connects up the country and its people with the great ocean of humanity  Olive Schreiner’s vision of a non-racial South Africa Wherever a Dutchman, an Englishman, a Jew, and a native are superimposed, there is a common South African condition through which no dividing line can be drawn […]. South African unity is not the dream of a visionary; it is not even the forecast of genius, which makes clear and at hand that which only after ages can accomplish […]. South African unity is a condition the practical necessity for which is daily and hourly forced upon us by the common needs of life; it is the one path open to us. For this unity all great men (sic) born in South Africa during the next century will be compelled directly and indirectly to labour […]; it is the attainment of this unity which constitutes the problem of South Africa: How from our political states, and our discordant races, can a great, a healthy, a united, an organised nation be formed?  Although, as I have stressed before, no country can be a perfect model for others, I do think that the kind of debates and local initiatives that are taking place in South Africa today, warrant close study by other polities, especially by those that are being transformed by the exigencies of „globalisation“, i.e., the intensification of the integration of the world economy, from „monocultural“ and „monolingual“ entities into multicultural, multilingual societies.

The End Vortrag von Neville Alexander, 18.11.2010 in Graz