Language, Nationalism and Globalism: Educational Consequences of Changing Patterns of Language Use

STEPHEN BARBOUR

The following views stem in particular from the book Language and Nationalism in Europe, edited jointly with Cathie Carmichael (Barbour and Carmichael, 2000), in which the editors and the other contributors examine the interrelations between language and nationalism in the various states of Europe. The book starts, in a sense, from a nationalist perspective, not because we are nationalists, but because this perspective forms a useful point of departure. A nationalist perspective tends to assume that every individual can be unambiguously classified as belonging to a particular nation, that every nation has a relatively easily definable territory, and that every nation could, in its territory, constitute a sovereign independent nation-state, although not all do at any given time. Frequently in Europe, though very much less frequently elsewhere, the nationalist perspective assumes that each nation has a clearly distinct national language, peculiar to that nation. I hardly need to say that this perspective is based to a great extent on illusion. We found it a useful starting point, however, since it enabled us to highlight the political problems which arise in the many cases where such nationalist discourse clashes with reality.

To make my own position clear, I regard nationalism as highly problematic, since its inherent classification and division of human beings harbours great potential for injustice and conflict. The book, and this chapter, focus on Europe not because we are intentionally eurocentric in our perspective but simply because it is particularly in Europe that language is so closely bound up with nationalism.

The data that we accumulated on the highly varied interrelations between language and nationalism will, I hope, prove useful for stimulating further research; we have so far been able to describe more or less how academics, politicians and journalists see the place of language in the self-image of the various nations, and we now need to investigate to what extent other sections in society share their vision. There is great scope for further research, and this chapter is intended more as a signpost to future research than as a report on work completed.

Many politicians and journalists adopt a generally nationalistic public discourse, not necessarily because this reflects their personal beliefs but perhaps more because they believe this is what the public wants to hear. Furthermore, with respect to language, most states operate generally nationalistic language policies, but with enormous variation across the continent. An important outcome of such policies is the weakening of minority languages. This can arise from many types of action, ranging from the physical removal of their speakers (for example in the many episodes of ethnic cleansing in European history) to benign neglect, as in the case of Channel-Islands French. Something highlighted by our research is the importance of the attitudes of the speakers of the minority language themselves, which range from the great insistence on using the language found among speakers of Catalan, to the sentimental attachment to Irish in Ireland which is often not matched by a desire to speak it. Striking is the frequency with which the very conceptualisation of a particular language may relate to the strength of national feeling in the group in question. Speakers of Catalan, although it is linguistically close to Castilian, have a clear conception of a distinct Catalan language while speakers of Breton, utterly distinct from French, identify much more strongly with local dialects than with a Breton language, in the absence of strong Breton nationalism (Mari Jones, personal communication). There is great scope here for further research into the highly varying levels of language loyalty not only among minorities but also among speakers of majority languages

Another deleterious effect of nationalistic policies on language use is monolingualism. Monolingualism means the ability to operate effectively only in one language. It represents a considerable handicap but probably only affects a minority of the world's population, chiefly in Europe and the Americas. In contrast, bilinguals and multilinguals operate effectively in more than one language and, moreover, may find it a great deal easier to acquire further languages; however, in both monolinguals and multilinguals there is great individual variation in language-learning proficiency. Monolingualism arises chiefly in centralised nation-states whose promotion of the national language leads them to prevent those most readily able to learn languages – young children – from being exposed to any language other than the national one. Exposure to other languages will then be too little and too late. In such states there can even arise the quite counter-factual belief that multilingualism is abnormal and problematic (for some more refined argument on the issues, see Edwards, 1994: 55–88).

Language and Globalism

Nationalism is an important motivator for many groups and individuals but also important, alongside self-interest or the interests of kin and neighbours, is globalism. Many people are motivated at least some of the time by the interests of the species or even the planet. Although I use here 'international' and 'global' and their derivatives interchangeably, I would prefer to use 'global' and its derivatives throughout, since 'international' implies that people can act only on a global level through the intermediary of the nation, which need not be so. I have, however, felt obliged to avoid some (potential) derivatives of 'global', such as 'globalist', which are not current English usage.

A global perspective recognises the need for an international language. The response to this need on the part of many internationalists is to use English, a most important point considered below. A global perspective poses little real threat to national languages or...