Silverstein - The Whens and Wheres - As Well as Hows - Of Ethnolinguistic Recognition

8/9/2019 Silverstein - The Whens and Wheres - As Well as Hows - Of Ethnolinguistic Recognition

1/27

531

The Whens and WheresAs Well As Howsof

Ethnolinguistic Recognition

Michael Silverstein

How can they be real Americans if they dont/wont/cant speak English?

Weve all heard such questions, and weve read similar sentiments in angryletters to newspapers. At least, the feeling must be, that people within a certain

political boundarytheres a whereand in public ear- or eye-shottheres a

whenought to signal their recognition of now being included within the social

whole by using the dominant languagetheres a how(and by not using oth-

ers). Here is language use conceptualized as unavoidably wearing an emblem of

identity (or at least of self-identification). And it can go even further in its rationale

for the insistence. Evidencing a language-shapes-thought Whorfianism, certainpeople also reason that those using languages other than ours could not possibly

think about the world the way we speakers of English do. (Here, one can substitute

any two languages.) With this rationale, editorialists and writers of letters to the

editor feel ever more justified in linking the emblematic value of language use to

some deep intuition about why ethnolinguistic difference should not be tolerated

Public Culture 15(3): 531557Copyright 2003 by Duke University Press

An earlier version, entitled Ethnolinguistic Identity 24/7: The Political Economy of Recognition

in the Age of Global Communication, was prepared for the Yale University Ford seminar, Trans-

lating the World, held in New Haven, Connecticut, 28 February1 March 2002, under the auspices of

the Yale Center for International and Area Studies and the Department of Comparative Literature. I

am grateful to Janet Morford, Michael Holquist, Vilashini Cooppan, J. Bernard Bate, and James

Tweedie for the invitation and for gracious engagement on the occasion. Jan Blommaert, Susan Gal,

and Elizabeth Povinelli have reacted with stimulating and useful responses to that earlier form.

H


2/27

here and now. Plurilingualism in civil societytaken thus as an index of dif-

ference of thoughtoffends the sense that there can be a social whole transpar-

ently instantiating a longed-for common public opinion. Implicit anxieties of sub-jectivity underlie explicit anxieties of ethnolinguistic identity.

Anxieties of identity. Identity on peoples minds. We hear constantly of crises

of identity, of the workings of identity politics, of identity work that needs to be

done, and so forth. So let us start at the beginning. By identity we can understand

a subjective intuition that one belongs to a particular social category of people,

with certain potentials and consequences of this belonging. Frequently the intu-

ition suggests participation in ritual occasions and socializing in certain ways invariously institutionalized forms to make our identity clear to ourselves and to

others on a continuing basis. This already suggests a kind of temporality to the

way identity is, as it were, practiced.

Like all social psychological facts, peoples subjective intuitions of identity can

be strong or weak, focused or diffuse, persistent or intermittent over various inter-

vals. I am only indirectly concerned here with these intensely individual experi-

ences of identity intuitions, important as they are for literary expression and foreach individual biography.1 I am rather concerned with the social conditions in

which they come into being as normative orientations among whole populations

of individuals, are sustained or discouraged among them, or disappear (in the

psychosocial phenomenon called the loss of identity in assimilation).

And in particular, I am concerned with what we term ethnolinguistic identity,

that is, peoples intuitions of social categoriality emerging from certain cultural

assumptions about language. These construe language as constituting a basis for

the divisions among types or kinds of people, especially as people conceive lan-

guages to be the central and enabling vehicle or channel of thought and culture.

So ethnolinguistic identity is not a mechanical institutional fact; it is a fact of

a psychosocial sort that has emerged where people ascribe a certain primordiality

to language and a certain consequentiality to language difference. They consider

it for one or another cultural reason to be a guide to socially meaningful differ-

ences among people and to peoples socially effective membership in groups.

Ethnolinguistic identity intuits that there are differential claims to social par-

ticipation based on differences of membership in what we can term a language

community.

Public Culture

532

1. Note, for example, how such matters constitute one horizon of consciousness in the deeply Sym-

bolist and psychoanalytically informed Bildungsroman Call It Sleep of Henry Roth (1934), or in theautobiographyHunger of Memory: The Education of Richard Rodriguez (1982).


3/27

Ethnolinguistic

Recognition

533

Thus we can understand its importance in the contemporary era of heightened

ethnic and especially ethnonational identity: the modern era, it seems. Various

interested ethnic and ethnonationalist projects use the institutional paraphernaliaof ethnolinguistic identity as an instrument of mobilizing sentiment. Such proj-

ects constitute a strong force motivating people to linguistic consciousness and

concernat the same time giving experiential concreteness to nationalist senti-

ment. But even a purported analyst of the cultural phenomenology of nationalism,

Benedict Anderson (1983, 1991), seems willy-nilly to conflate the two planes, so

that each genuine nationalism, for him, has its naturally associable emblematic

language in which to inscribe its own trajectory of destiny, its own transcendentdiachrony, the writers and readers of the texts of which participating in a primor-

dial mystical union. Given the way modern state regimes have actually strained

and labored, over long periods, to shape languages each as an institutional force

of group homogenization, to forge a sense of a nation-state, it is not hard to see

why Anderson would make this conflation, writing, as he does, from deep within

the cultural and political order of always already standardized language commu-

nities.I want to call to attention some of what I see as the prime institutional forces

that are right now shaping the way peoples ethnolinguistic identities are being

asserted and contested in the politics and economics of recognition in state and

wider orders.

A good way to think about these matters is to imagine both local and global

social space-timea metaphor of Newtonian or Einsteinian space-timeand

how what is at issue are points and intervals in social space-time, the complex,

multidimensional framework in which mutual locating can be accomplished.

What is the shape of such social space-time, being, as a matter of course, a kind of

pulsating, changing intersection of many competing principles of structuring?

Groups of people arrogate to themselves such points and intervals as inside

identity, from which and in terms of which they wish radially to project an out-

side. Others may imagine a distinct social space-time in which points and inter-

vals are claimed only when allocated to groups of people for licensed sites and

subspaces of ethnonational and ethnolinguistic self-fashioning and self-imagining.

A politics of recognition in effect works through these kinds of emergently struc-

tured, changing flows of power that summon people to such sites and spaces

where, in social time, they are licensed, yielded the power to inhabit identities and

to recruit others to share them. They might, for example, be recognized through

the workings of a court, in effect licensed to have a certain identity there and in

the broader space-time of the courts jurisdiction. (In the United States, the class


4/27

action lawsuit epitomizes such recognition under the Fourteenth Amendment to

the Constitution.) They might be recognized by the workings of advanced com-

modity capitalism, an identity coming to be linked, positively or negatively, par-tially or completely, to the emergent organization of production, circulation,

consumption, and use. Such identity issues are central to what is termed culture

especially in contemporary nonanthropological terms.

Given the complexity of any social space-time that identity now inhabits, I am

interested in asking questions about its conditions. For example, how are ethno-

linguistic identities being transformed for people increasingly experiencing not

only socioeconomic globalization but globalization of consciousness? What space-time structuring principles are coming into play? What, more generally, are the

characteristic topographies of licensing of ethnolinguistic identity? How are these

topographies being instantiated and/or contested in various places?

Are ethnolinguistic identitiesprimordial, as suggested by what seems to many

to be the autonomous existence of languagesor at least of languageoutside

of human actors and agents? Or do ethnolinguistic identities in some sense come

and go, providing a transient or punctuated sense of categorizable selfhood in thecontemporary world? Are they possibly multiple and superimposed? And with

what consequences for the translational suturing together of language communi-

ties and the cultures that support them, across which not only people must move

but also the texts that these people produce?

The logic of ethnolinguistic identity necessitates that it must be, like a subjec-

tive sense of ones own culture, or of having ones own tradition, a product of con-

tact. (Even the Hellenes came to a consciousness of themselves as a we in rela-

tion to the barbaroi, those babbling others.) That is to say, there is a structured

and frequently stratified system of differences in which subjective identities

emerge only diacritically, in mutually reinforcing acts that create and sustain an

us different from either you or themtopologically, a we-centered disk of

difference, out to the limits of known humanity and beyond. Hence, only our own

imaginative fantasies would assign to so-called primitive or truly local peoples

subjectivity a blissfully unself-conscious pre-identarian ethnolinguistic existence.

Such a fantasy is a form of our own retroprojective escapism. (Observe how lit-

erary works give a geographical locatability to the fantasy, ranging from a valley

in James Hiltons Shangri-La in Lost Horizon [1933]; to an island, Bali Hai of

Roger and Hammersteins South Pacific; to a now-lost continent, Atlantis: The

Antediluvian World of Ignatius Donnellys 1882 imagination; and even planets

and other galactic places of alterity. Observe, too, that the latter-day space adven-

Public Culture

534


5/27

Ethnolinguistic

Recognition

535

ture films, like alien- and monster-themed films of the 1950s, ascribe relational

and hostileidentities directly to the others with whom humans must do battle.)

At the very other extreme, there is the enveloping social space-time logic of

metropolitan ethnolinguistic hegemony. Its terms are ambitious: a definition of

oneself negatively and relationally with respect to every possible other, not-A and

not-B and so on. This can be imagined as an n-dimensional conically shaped

social space-time, with a top-and-center and various dimensions of moving down

and out. Here, we can first locate those at the top-and-center, the spatial and tem-

poral metropole of some permanently stratified and spatially conceptualized cul-

tural and linguistic imperiumthink for example of the slogan the West and theRest; think of the view of the U.S. English adherents with respect to ethno-

linguistic minorities in the American nation-state. Top-and-center folks can look

downward-and-outward, as it were, toward peripheries at various degrees of neg-

atively valued deviation from their imagined full-time, default, or unmarked

identity. People who are ethnolinguistically at the top-and-center can thus have

knowledge of such differences as may constitute others ethnolinguistic identities,

but they are all perceived to be elsewhere in relation to the apex, which alone seesitself as licensed for unproblematichence, hegemonic24/7-and-everywhere

expressibility. Those at the top-and-center never have to stop having their own

identity, imagined, in a sense, to be invariant for all their stratified contact with

others. And this is so even where politicoeconomic problems emerge relating to

the recognition of others ethnolinguistic identities. For example, in realms of

production, circulation, and consumption of the texts of culture, for those at the

top-and-center, the existence of other ethnolinguistic identities within their strat-ified order presents the occasional question of translating from one language to

another, always with the implied pragmatic trope of up-toward-the-apex versus

down-toward-the-periphery. This is a point I will return to in later discussion.

My own ethnographic experience with these matters emerges both from indig-

enous Native American and Australian Aboriginal fieldwork, as well as from

researching the past couple of centuries European history and discourses about

language. I conclude on this basis that contemporary students of languages in flux

must see that the processes, like recognition, that affect languages in their current

state are situated in the intertwined fields of politics and economics, where the

political economy of cultural forms like ethnic, ethnonational, and ethnolinguistic

identities operates.

First off, globalization, by degrees, has pervaded communication and con-

sciousness, though the local effects in different parts of the world are lumpy (as


6/27

Jonathan Friedman [2001] has reminded us). This can be appreciated in terms of

our space-time view of peoples functioning in the world. Globalization pervades

this space-time more and less intensely as we locate regions in it, and there are

networks of influence that define regional subspaces for various aspects of glob-

alization, capital itself being only one aspect of the whole. Hence, any commu-

nitys sense of autonomy of culture-language-identity exists in relation to this

condition.

We must note that as far back as historical linguistics can go, one can find evi-

dence of linguistic diffusionborrowingindicating that languages have never

been isolated as such in either historical or prehistorical time. But today, the con-scious experience of culture-language-identity has definitively become an issue of

how peoples all over the world must actively construct, not merely construe, their

locality, as Arjun Appadurai (1996) has termed it, the property of lived or inhab-

itable groupness (as opposed to demographic category-status) with some rela-

tively autonomous center of cultural normativity.

In American experience, to be sure, the key folk term in American English for

a project of making locality relevant to identity is community. Individuals aresummoned to want to point tothereby to expresstheir own participation in

a communitys groupness; observe todays abundance of American flags dis-

played in locations identifiable with the domestic self (house, automobile) to rat-

ify and to perform (as in: I do swear or affirm . . . on governmental documents)

ones group-orientation to a whole nation-state (and nationality). Such forces

operate fractally at yet more local levels of groupness (community), as well as

operating so as to create cross-cutting senses of groupness. Indicators of identityfrequently recapitulate each other in a dialectic of social differentiation, in effect

carrying different potential messages of deep primordiality or at least importance.

For example, one can invoke a GLBT community, encouraging display of rain-

bow signs on automobiles or house-flags just like the way, to indicate American-

ness, one displays United States flags. There is a community of sufferers of a

disease of self or loved one, joining a viva voce or electronic support group, the

emblems of which become logoized for transport, too. And there is even a com-

munity of researchers, participating in various group-affirming activities that, if

sustained through organizational means, are strongly compelled to have a logo

ready to hand or at least on a Web site and a T-shirt. (Even scholarly events such

as meetings create acronyms and logos like the Olympic logos of recent televised

ubiquity, presumably in the hope that this will be a spatiotemporally cyclic,

potentially ritually participatory punctuation of social space with this affiliative

identity.)

Public Culture

536


7/27

Ethnolinguistic

Recognition

537

Such sociocultural locality must be negotiated in larger, relational frames by

any people making a claim to it, meaning that locality has become the grounded

assertibility of we-group difference within such larger social formations. Politico-

economically exposed identity groups have to assert such difference with respect to

regional polities, nation-states, transnational political and economic spheres

of influence, even empires. (A good parallel here is the legal concept of the divide

between citizens so-called public and private domains of sociality. This is a bound-

ary policed, both positively and negatively, from both sides in sometimes legal as

well as politicoeconomic discourses of obligations [to or toward], rights [to or

in], and protections [from].) Groupness or locality achieves recognition, bydegree, of a kind of collective privacy-in-public; in the United States, its key per-

formative sites have been the class action lawsuit, the organized grassroots polit-

ical or economic action, and the insertion into public space-time of rituals of

memory and memorial affiliation.

A contemporary student of language must therefore be sensitive even to what

an ethnolinguistic label, a glottonym, points to as underlying processes in social

space-time. There are many linguists, sociologists, and others of an older, moreRomantic or Herderian persuasion who, in dealing with language groupness, are

disinclined to reexamine their analytic discourses invoking such glottonyms, as

though they referred to some fixed and essential entities. The groupness of self-

conscious users of a language, always a fragile precipitate of sociocultural process,

disappears in favor of the objectualized stuff of traditional collecting and taxon-

omizing sciences. Otherwise well-intentioned people use taxonomic, classifying

terms like language and culture in what have thus become essentially folk mean-ings in the political economy of ethnolinguistic identity (for people everywhere

have learned the objectifying lessons of taxonomic science that they, too, have

a language and a culturetheirs, that their group has always distinctively had).

Even some linguistic professionals still think in terms of a directly plottable dis-

tinctive geography of discrete languages and cultures, yielding, for example,

maps of languages-in-continuous-yet-well-bounded-territory. Of course, as we

now can discern, plurilingualism, pluridialectism, and so forth have been the

basic verbal competence of peoples in much of the so-called traditional world. So

we can retrospectively understand that, whatever the actualities of the matter,

these concepts that read through language to ethnic group to land were the stock-

in-trade of ideologically useful Standard Average European cultural policy sci-

ences of the ages of empire and modernist postcolonialism. Languages and cul-

tures in this sense came along with the real estate and were collectible with

provenance notes for museums and archives.


8/27

Such Romantic usage is, to be sure, fully discursively compatible with words

like community,freedom, and resistance in the contemporary struggles for local-

ization we observe as one of the realities stimulated by identity politics. There is

no doubt about the contemporary compatibility of Romantic linguistics with such

a situationthat it has, interestingly enough, contributed to bringing about. But

Romantic linguistic study does not usefully contribute to analytic understanding

of what is going on in most situations. For example, consider how many Fourth

World peoples, struggling for political recognition, are summoned to claim local-

ity in jural terms by having to mobilize precisely such Romantic expert knowl-

edge. Those wanting recognition are thus summoned to demonstrate locality asthe very condition of becoming recognized to have itthat is, to have hadit all

along! Think for example of the demands made on indigenous people pursuing

United States federal recognition of their heritage through legal process (the

image of the Mashpee trial discussed by James Clifford [1988] coming to mind

here; cf. also Merlan 1998: 23140; Povinelli 2002). I shall return later to such

dilemmas of language-and-culture workers, seemingly politically correct, or well

intentioned, but perhaps ethnographically naive.Negotiating ethnolinguistic locality, thus coming to ethnolinguistic groupness

whether to preserve a sense of it, to reenergize it, or to reconstruct it after a hia-

tusnecessitates using a semiotic vocabularya set of indicating resourcesto

articulate or perform first-person groupness (we-ness) in ways the relevant fram-

ing institutions understand. Such a vocabulary must be visible and recognizable

not only group-internally, but especially also in the larger institutional contexts

that license its use. (Hence, we speak of a politics of recognition, of course, inboth the diplomatic and conceptual senses.) As ethnographers, we can study the

processes of a groups visibility and recognizability by attending to what I like to

see as the sociocultural scheduling of emblematic identity displays.

Occasions of display manifest cultural texts, especially verbally centered ones.

It is important to realize that the key identity-relevant attributes of such cultural

texts are not necessarily anything like represented content as such, but rather

all the verbal and nonverbal signs that, displayed by and around the self, in effect

wrap social personae, social spaces, moments in social-organizational time, even

institutional forms, with in-group (versus out-group, of course) status. Such

occasions of display are performative; in and by wearing, singing, saying, eating

such-and-such, an identifying quality of person, place, event, etc. comes into

beinghere and nowin a framework of categorization that is now made rele-

vant to whatever is going on or can go on. All such situation-transformative dis-

plays are in effect anchored to an origin point where the display takes place, and

Public Culture

538


9/27

Ethnolinguistic

Recognition

539

they project a kind of radial geometry around the origin point, where the groups

we-ness instantiated in the first-person display lives. (The radial spatializa-

tion is just like that of so-called deictic categories of language such as English

now : then; here : there; this : that.)

Sometimes, a speaker uses special linguistic expressions of a particular lan-

guage as identity markers, as opposed, for example, to the language of a matrix

text, performing thus a little embedded ritual act of emblematic identity marking,

and, for the addressees in the in-group, summoning all the pregnant cultural

meanings called up by use of the special term. Even while speaking local English,

Wasco and Wishram heritage people on the Warm Springs or Yakama Reserva-tions in Oregon and Washington states, respectively, will say of some young man

that he is Skuly-ing around,2 getting into mischief, especially connoting sexual

adventures and other adventures of crafty appetite, using the Kiksht (Wasco-

Wishram) word, Sklia, for the myth actor Coyote, the trickster-transformer of

the age before people. (Sahaptin-language heritage folks will use the correspond-

ing denominative verb Spilyay-ing.) The local anchoring of such ritual acts of

ethnolinguistic identity in these reservation communities is clear even whenyoung people, for whom Kiksht or Sahaptin are distant heritage languages, use

the local English phrase coyote-ing aroundto describe this kind of social behav-

ior. This alludes to the myth-age character and to the Sahaptin verb derived from

Coyotes name[i]spilyywisa (to engage in crafty antics [recalling Coyote])

from which also the creatively hybrid local English forms must derive. So their

use performs, respectively, Wasco and Sahaptin identity. Ethnolinguistic minority

speakers always report that, compared to a threatening majority language, theirminority language has so much more flavorin Yiddish, tamand is so much

more evocatively fulsome and juicyzaftigto the affective processes.

Because use of such terms invokes special, shared cultural knowledge on each

occasion of use, the terms present those in the communicative act with the oppor-

tunity or anxiety of acknowledgment by a response that recognizes this fact. So

such acts of usage can be groupness-affirming acts of rich, comfortable, and pri-

vate meanings of belonging, of being in the performed center of a group, or they

can constitute threats to passing for those wanting to remain in the ethno-

linguistic closet. (Oy, gevalt! the would-be WASP society matron shouted out

when she tripped; and, recovering her balance, so she thought, she immediately

added, whatever that means! Recall also Woody Allens brilliant joke in

Sleeper[1973], where, making an error, one of the physiognomically Aryan [blond

2. Note the pregnant interlingual pun on the somewhat off-color, vernacular screw-ing around.


10/27

and blue-eyed] actors in a recuperative therapeutic simulation of the heros

Brooklyn Jewish childhood says to him, Shutup and eat your shiksa!as in

Shiksa complex and Philip Rothian sexual fantasy. From the film audiences

perspective, look at how many layers of in versus out ethnolinguisticand ethnic

group membership are being played with.)

There is a perduringly consistent social field of performable identity-orientations

in the contemporary state of languages in the First World. This has contributed in

no small measure to what is now termed modernity. Those at the apex of regimes

of superordinate versus subordinate languages do, in fact, assign rationality, tech-

nical precision, and communicative efficiency to the superordinate language orstyle of usage, even including approved high art for the local imagination of the

abstract sublime. By contrast, they assign irrationality or emotionality, feeling,

and folk inefficiency to the subordinate language or style, even as they mayat

arms distancecelebrate the earthy genuineness of ethnolinguistic insider folk

art in the original.

Now the conventions for expected or even normative manifestation of such

identity-displays across all such occasions inscribe a structure of interdiscursivityacross identity-events, we might say, so that each recognizable (and recognized!)

type of groupness has a particular kind of existence in the social organization of

a more global social formation. There appear to be structures of interdiscursive

display that carve out an institutional form in which paradigms of ethnolinguistic

difference are countenanced, and even matter. There is, in short, a who, a when,

and a where to ethnolinguistic identity conceived of as a large-scale fact, the con-

ditions of which differ widely for different labeled glottonyms.Thus, emerging from a set of experiences of identity-displays, the group itself

appearsreflexively as well as to othersto perdure, to exist. The groups locally

understood difference depends on the particular modalities of sociological exis-

tence within social space-time. Both to insiders and to outsiders, its qualities of dif-

ference are frequently understandable in ideologically essentialized, even natural-

ized terms such as geohistorical provenance, kinship, descent, or race. (Oh yes!

a very senior public figure among the Warm Springs Wascoes said to me in passing

in 1971. Were a Penutian people. He was using the anthropological term for one

of Edward Sapirs [1929: 13841] large historical linguistic groupings of the

indigenous languages of North America. Lo-o-ong ago, my interlocutor revealed,

we [note!MS] came down the eastern side of the Cordillerasthe Rockies

and here onto [the] Oregon side of the [Columbia] River. He went on to enumer-

ate some of the other Penutian peoples in the Northwest. He had been a key wit-

ness in a 1953 treaty adjudication in both federal court and Congress; he knew

Public Culture

540


11/27

Ethnolinguistic

Recognition

541

whereof he spoke in the groupness-ratifying technical names of the superordinate

societys anthropological and legal experts.) Compare here Benedict Andersons

(1983, 1991) account of the essentializing and naturalizing bases for a cultural phe-

nomenology of nationalism and ethnonational identity under it. Being a member of

a nation is likened to family membership, to racial continuity, to autochthonous

panchronicity, etc., and occasions of display of national identity are assimilated to,

and assimilate, these other kinds of sociological status.

So language usage can be studied as an indicative praxis, a performance of

ethnolinguistic self-identification reflexively on display. But contrariwise, con-

sider the effects of this on language considered in the more usual way. Languageis, of course, deployable as what is termed a denotational code, that is, as a code

for saying something. People use it for representing real and imagined

worlds, for narrating events that take place in those real and imagined worlds,

and for explicating how and why things work the way they seem to. Most of the

labels for what are considered languagesglottonyms like English, Malayalam,

or Berberintend to pick out this kind of code. If using a particular identifiable

denotational code, or even using a word or expression or other formal feature inthe course of communicating, is an emblem of local identity, it, too, is swept up

into this scheduling principle and the problematics of ideological rationalization

of difference. Using languageA instead of languageB; using a word identifiably

of languageA instead of languageB: seen within a larger economy of communi-

cation such usage constitutes what we term a registerphenomenon (a context-

indicating variant way of saying the same thing as could otherwise be commu-

nicated). Here, whole languages, just like sociolectal variants of languages suchas Ebonics and Broadcast Standard American English, are brought together as

registers in a performable cultural imaginary of difference actually or potentially

in contrast one with another as alternative forms for the same social actors.

Observe, then, the very particular translational sensibility involved in the

enregisterment of language difference. Hence, by this measure, what gets trans-

lated, when, by, and for whom, is an essential part of scheduled recognition. I

recall the report of a Stuyvesant High School classmate in the early 1960s that his

grandfather was reading Alexandre Dumas filss Le comte de Monte-Cristo in

Grandpas first language, Yiddish. The old gent had read much of the rest of the

corpus of European nineteenth-century literature in Yiddish translation as well.

Think of the intersection of class, education, and ethnicitylet alone raw figures

of print circulation in the simplest market computationin which this kind of

translation was not only possible but a continuing fact of life of how and where

two languages and their textual production came together. Even in America,


12/27

Grandpas generation had constituted a multilingual audience of a certain con-

stancy of class and educational characteristics, living in a relatively autonomous

universe of the political economy of culture. When Yiddish definitively became

an ethnolinguistic minority languagea heritage language, in factenregistered

as not standard American English, the structure of relationship changed pro-

foundly; in America, one aspires to culture at the level even of Dumass work in

English or, with real distinction (Bourdieu 1984), in French. The latter is more

like the identity act in which readers of the Latin translation Winnie ille Pu (Milne

1960), rather than Winnie the Pooh (Milne 1926), were participating. The mes-

sage of the distinctive refinement of cultured Latinity is loud and clear, and thisbest-selling translation was in brisk circulation as a culture-artifact, hardly a text-

artifactamong adults, not children, by the way!as both a frivolous act of

affirmation of belonging and as an ironic challenge to those who aspired to it.

Within a stratified political economic structure of ethnolinguistic identity, how-

ever, translation itself is a fraught cultural praxis, one that people experience with

both upward and downward effects.

Here is a case in point, from the Northern Kimberleys, Australia. Among theWorora ethnolinguistic group in the Mowanjum Community of Australian Abo-

riginal people (with whom I lived in 1974 and 1975), the gospels of Mark and

Luke were used in church services, translated from English into Worora by an

Anglican missionary, the Rev. Mr. Love. By the time of my fieldwork forty-ish

years after Love, the translations had becomes highly influential among the older,

multilingual Worora speakers. For them, they seemed to be composed in a special

church register of Worora, with connotations of sacredness and closeness tothein their experienceanglophone Christian world.

As it turned out, the translations manifested many grammatical and phraseo-

logical errors from the perspective of (secular) norms of Worora as I could dis-

cover them, and these were not archaisms, since the Rev. Mr. Loves own gram-

matical notes agreed with my consultants speech. So the literalismscalques

from English idiom and outright bad morphology and syntax in the translated

texts were taken to be the authoritative Christian Word in Worora, a new register

for the community to assimilate to its system of register variation. The trans-

lation, being much more like English in syntax and diction, is a force of assimila-

tion to English denotational code at the same time as it appears to render English

into a local language of higher register-value. But that act of rendering has

changed the local language community as wellin fact, in the direction of lan-

guage loss. (Recall here Walter Benjamins The Task of the Translator [1923] in

Public Culture

542


13/27

Ethnolinguistic

Recognition

543

which he worries about the dialectical mutuality of source- and target-language

versions of a text, inevitably coming to be meaning lenses one on the other.)

Within a stratified conical order, then, use of an ethnolinguistic groups denota-

tional code or register is licensed for certain times, places, institutional sites, and

modalitieswhether positively by prescription or negatively by proscription. It is

licensed in exactly the same way as are a groups emblematic style of dress, food and

its mode of preparation or consumption, and its textual expressive culture (genred

aesthetic production, whether verbal, plastic, or graphic). And certain schedulings

are, in effect, reserved to such-and-such group as ritual sites in the social organiza-

tion that anchors language to identity in group-particular ways, much as, in theUnited States, national self-recognition ritual is distributed throughout the land

on the Fourth of July every year (cf. Rosaldo and Flores 1997).

I think that this becomes obvious to anyone who has been stuck in traffic in a

major American city as that days ethnic pride parades or street festivals make

their claim on functional public space. Perhaps the historical model in large

citiesone would have to check thisis St. Patricks Day, 17 March. (Of

course, small, predominantly ethnic towns and villages have always celebratedtheir own local ethnonational heritage for themselves.) But there is now a total

spatiotemporalization of display for every ethnic, ethnonational, ethnolinguistic,

and other group that participates in the paradigm of politicoeconomically recog-

nized identity. The group is licensed to enact ethnic private space somewhere in

town, to use a street, a downtown plaza, or the run of a traditional ethnic enclave

at some definite point or interval in the overall civic calendar. The identity owns

that date and has rights floridly to display itself. In my own city, Chicago, a highlyenclaved and multifariously identified city, Dearborn Street in the Looppast

Daley Centeris the parade route of choice for every ethnonational identity on

occasions like the old countrys independence day or a similar founding histori-

cal moment. In this logic, Columbus Day has become the property of Italian-

American Chicagoans, just as the day commemorating the Stonewall incident has

become central to when the Gay Pride parade occurs (though taking place in what

is now identified on the civic map as the gay enclave).

Many of the traditional or former identitarian enclaves are now evacuated of

heritage ethnic and especially ethnolinguistically identified folk (who have moved

to the suburbs, sometimes re-creating at a different level of socioeconomic inte-

gration the spatial particularity of the city). Hence, a kind of localizing museolo-

gization of ethnic, ethnonational, and ethnolinguistic identity has been taking

place, in which items of emblematic valuesuch as arts and crafts, food, cloth-


14/27

ing, music, and actual museumsrecuperate the location as a spatial and tempo-

ral renvoi. In historical process, the neighborhood becomes a secondary locus to

whatever it referred back to, in a kind ofrhizome (punctuated network) model of

spatiotemporalization, as we might term it (I shall return to this below). People of

that heritage can make a weekly or monthly pilgrimage back to the enclave (or

one determined by liturgical calendar). They can purchase items that become

in Andersons nice phrasingethnic logos (here, consumable or wearable ethnic

logos, to be sure, or more literal cultural texts) (Anderson 1991: 175, 18284).

Note that it is not simply the matter of commodification of identity insofar

as it is identity paraphernalia commoditized; it is a dominant urban modality ofexperiencing ones heritage and feeling affirmed in ones participation in a group,

not merely a category or kind of people. One is at home in the old neighborhood.

Perhaps an older relative still lives in the ethnic enclaveif gentrification hasnt

driven the taxes up through the roofand families, even significant swatches of

kin, return to this domicile on ritual occasions (think of the liturgical year of an

associated religion), or even at other calendric intervals. They frequently are

invited to participate in meals that turn into rituals of consubstantiality, eucharis-tically consuming the ethnicity as an act of personal reaffirmation as well as of

commensality with kindred others. It is on such occasions, and in such places,

that the language of the ethnolinguistic groupespecially a heritage language

is maximally present, to whatever degree people are competent in it. Even in the

context of Native American reservations, one hears long-moribund languages, in

formulaic speeches, recitations and songs, on occasions of the communitys civic

cyclic time as well as at life-cycle transition rituals. Funerals, with their backward-looking tropic forms befitting the normatively old-deceasednotwithstanding

they are, as one says, for the living are especially laden with language that other-

wise is not seen or heard in ordinary life.

In larger social formations, what is termed assimilationism, for example, can

be seen to be a particular adjustment of the scheduling of ethnolinguistic identity

such that there are few, if any, ritual sites in the spatiotemporal public sphere for

a particular identity-conferring language or register. Assimilation can be by degrees.

For example, in contemporary America the Latino ethnolinguistic identity is affil-

iated rather promiscuously by outsiders with any and all New World Spanishes. It

increasingly operates to license an ethnolinguistic identity useful to a paradigm of

political and economic allocations. But there are at least five or six different

dialectal standardizations of Western Hemisphere Spanish, with a complex inter-

nal relative cultural stratification (cf. Zentella 1996) as well as, of course, a distinct

country-of-origin ethnonational consciousness.

Public Culture

544


15/27

Ethnolinguistic

Recognition

545

What is termed multiculturalism, by contrast, can be seen to be a scheduling

such that there are many ritual sites licensed for presentation of identity-indicating

language, perhaps even expansively constituted ones that invite wider participa-

tion not under the licensing sign of specific ethnolinguistic identity. We might

point here to proposals for making everyone multilingual within a polity with a

minority as well as a majority denotational code as alternative, if perhaps not fully

equivalent, registers. (Observe that the English Only movement in the United

States has found at least one response in the English Plus movement, which

encourages mass multilingualism in American English and at least one other

ethnonationally identifiable language [see Adams and Brink 1990; Baron 1990;Crawford 1992]. At one time in the 1960s, the Province of Quebec within the

nation-state of Canada considered transforming English-French asymmetric

bilingualism into a pedagogical program to achieve universal symmetric bilin-

gualism; this never happened [see Dunton et al. 1965, 196770].)

Observe that as ethnolinguistic assimilationism versus ethnolinguistic multi-

culturalism are construed from the top-and-center, they are different adjustments

of parameters of licensed language usage, and not fundamentally distinct ordersof the political economy of language and culture. In the logic of a politics of recog-

nition, moreover, they are asymmetrically irreversible, because identity emblems

of a minority that is assimilating pass out of an erstwhile in-group to the larger

social formations societal memory, or historical consciousness. This then becomes

the consciousness of the in-group as well.

Note, for example, the degree to which the current squaw controversies, the

protests by Native American people against using place-names containing thatlexical form, are based on such a history of assimilative forces. For various Algon-

quian language communities, cognate forms in the seventeenth century were just

the words translatable as woman; wife, of course. It was clearly Europeans who

enregistered usage from outside. This lies behind the contemporary English-lan-

guage term, squaw, that is in semantic contrast with woman and more strongly in

contrast with lady (suggesting refined, especially white, woman). The contempo-

rary Native American consciousness of the term is an assimilated one, even

though the protest is couched in terms of traditional ethnolinguistic pride and its

denigration. Note even the tacoethnically bleached as it ascends the class strat-

ification as the wrapand do not forget the assimilated bageldeNew

Yorkified with blueberries and cinnamon and other Leviticusine abominations

in many placesin the American fast-food experience.

If scheduling in social-organizational sites is the correct way of looking at the

contemporary dynamics of locality in its impact on language, I want to highlight


16/27

three trends of globalization that are affecting the topographies and the kinds of

scheduling of ethnolinguistic identity. These trends seem to sharpen the crises of

demand for recognition that we linguists remark and report. First, increasingly

the connected ethnolinguistic groups have heightened diasporic (rhizomic)

linguistic and cultural sensibilities. Second, self-localizing processes of identity

seem to operate in tiered or fractalized re-regionalization of politicoeconomic

frames (competing conics). And finally, ethnolinguistic praxes articulate them-

selves under pressures of functionalist ideologies of tier-shift or museologization

of language and culture (fractal disks). Let me briefly discuss each one, gestur-

ing to some examples I have in mind.

Mediated Diasporas, Reenergized Linguistic Minorities Modern technologies for

production, circulation, and consumption of texts now create them and move

them about with great speed as their circulation subtends great, even global, dis-

tances. Digitized and pixel-based electronic transmission among computers is

now overlaid on an older regime of analog electromagnetic broadcast trans-

mission, in turn both overlaid on durable and circulatable text-artifacts likeprinted and photographed material, phonograph and later generation audio- and

video-recorded artifacts and the like. As is implied by all these overlaid regimes

of communication, people can be very much locked into different orders of

chronotopicality being in (social) space-timein the different aspects of their

lives that depend on these different media.

For example, that ethnolinguistic identity of a local in-group can now take

place in the chronotope of global, ethnolinguistic 24/7-dom has the effect ofputting some languagesand their userson a very different footing with respect

to others. Their communicative envelope of scheduling identity-marking cultural

and linguistic material is stretched over multiple orders of chronotopicality. The

experience of identity is thus multiplex for anyone who functions at once at both

extremes, in two such very different spatiotemporal orders of effective simul-

taneity with communicating others in a connected population. Contrast with

those who participate in continuously global electronic communication people in

an ethnolinguistic community whose access to verbally mediated culture is exclu-

sively viva voce, or print-mediated, on intermittent scheduling.

Technology-mediated communicative accessgenerally implying correlative

facts of peoples socioeconomic integration and classthus deeply affects any

ethnolinguistic identity issues in the perspective of the conical model. In places

like the United States, this differentiation by communicative mode and access

distinguishes historical types of immigration or mobility. Traditionally, there was

Public Culture

546


17/27

Ethnolinguistic

Recognition

547

upward-and-inward assimilation of erstwhile ethnic minorities. Such stratifica-

tional mobility required their movement toward the ethnonationally neutral, top-

and-center 24/7 ethnolinguistic identity, emblematically realized in standardized

American English. With global communication, this is now giving way to ethno-

linguistic identities anchored to global elite maintenance of fully standardized

multilingualism.

For the time being, then, there has emerged a rather open accessibility to for-

merly highly local cultural and linguistic forms among connected people sepa-

rated by vast distances in the straightforward geographical or geopolitical senses.

This is combined with temporary as well as emigrant flows of actual people

across these distances. What is created is not so much a so-called diasporic self-

imagination (as is consistent with highly directional cultural and linguistic flows

from historical centers of outmigration) as a new virtual locality at the highest

planes of connectedness and mobility. Language communities in this state can, in

principle, have the same punctate, identity-reinforcing experience of simultaneity-

around-the-globe as currency traders connected by capital flows through elec-

tronic accounts posted in virtual simultaneity in London, New York, Tokyo, HongKong, and Zurich.

At these levels of connectivity are new kinds of cultural and linguistic elites,

whose distinctionto use Pierre Bourdieus (1984) termis to make ethnic lan-

guages visible to Euro-Western ethnonational institutions and consciousness in

rather new sociological configurations. Indeed, local populations affiliated with

such languages are reenergized by (re)connected nodal centerings of identity, in

the figure of a rhizomic growth that replicates the demographic plenitude of aheterochthonous language. There is, consequently, a kind ofelite re-ethnicization,

as I term it, occurring in this way in the United States, reversing the traditional

inverse relationship between schedulings of class and ethnicity. People at the

stratificational top-and-center reschedule ethnolinguistic identity by the logic of

the rhizomic connection. And by mobility across political boundaries, the signif-

icant addition of such cosmopolitanand highly connectedglobal elites to tra-

ditional de-ethnicizing postimmigrant populations in the First World has reener-gized erstwhile ethnic languages like Chinese, Hindi-Urdu, Polish, or Arabic.

Cultural materials at all levels of distinction are available far from historical cen-

ters of outmigration within nearly coincident intervals of scheduling, and they are

making language communities visible to politicoeconomic recognition as new

kinds of localities. Reenergized in this way, once politicoeconomically marginal

and contained ethnolinguistic enclaves can no longer be dealt with through inter-

mittent and peripheral schedulings of identity.


18/27

The state as a political form thus faces what can be a crisis of rhizomic, glo-

cal (i.e., locally expressed but globally occurrent) plurilingualism that I see as

akin to the crisis of control over multinational corporations and transnational

capital. One result in an assimilationist would-be nation-state like the United

States is jittery attempts at repression, so as to police the schedulings of non-

English languages (and as well of nonstandard sociolects) that become too visible

under a more traditionally and locally negotiated ethnolinguistic politics of

recognition. Note the English Only campaigns involving both federal and state

constitutional amendments, not a new phenomenon, to be sure (see references

above), but accelerated and intensified (Woolard 1989) in California, Arizona,

Florida, and other Sunbelt, particularly hispanophone sites of elite, or at least

bourgeois, re-ethnicization.

In this light, too, I believe we should understand the reaction against African

American Vernacular English (a.k.a. Ebonics) when the Oakland Combined

District School Board in December 1996 proposed using students competence in

this nonstandard register as a starting point for literacy and language arts. In the

manner of dealing with a pollution-taboo that has been violated in sacredprecincts of standard English (elementary school classrooms), even African

American political and cultural figures were in effect summoned to public media

outlets, one by one, to denounce this officialhence, it was feared, legitimating

recognition of sociolectal diversity within the overall language community. (One

might add here the nervous suspicions with which have been greeted the public

visibility and audibility of anything like Arabic, Urdu, or Persian, even as a pho-

netic interference in spoken English, since the tragically successful terroristaction of 11 September 2001.)

So new orders of mobility and of text-transmission and circulation seem to be

transforming ethnolinguistic identity and its modes of possible recognition within

a politicoeconomic order such as ours. And the institutional envelopes of sched-

uling by which ethnolinguistic identities are mapped as demographic realities are,

as well, being noticeably transformed. In universities, for example, the increas-

ingly dense emergence of chairs and programs or departments of [Glottonym orEthnonym] Studies signals that an ethnolinguistic group clamors for recognition

in the licensing sites of high culture. Observe how the naming patterns as a key to

the negotiation of recognition going on: Native American Studies, Asian Ameri-

can Studies, African American Studies, Jewish Studies. The patterns are very dif-

ferent from Romance Languages and Literatures, East Asian Languages and Civ-

ilizations, and so forth. Notice how they are frequently supplanting government-

and foundation-supported areal studies centers and programs as a function of

Public Culture

548


19/27

Ethnolinguistic

Recognition

549

aspirations of and funding by ethnolinguistically and ethnonationally internal

constituencies. It is the inside, identity-laden versus outside, disciplinary con-

strual of topical subject matter. It should also be noted that these new kinds of

programs are likely to deal with languages as heritage matter rather than in the

fashion of the older department of language and literature. This was the uni-

versal high-cultural mode for university-recognized languages, emerging from

the earlier secularization of sacred and high languages. It was, after all, the

philology of texts in first sacred and classical, then vernacular languages that

energized notions of standard and its teaching. So emblems of universal cultiva-

tion yield to emblems of particular identity.

Linguistic and Cultural Recognition in Tiers In the modern regime of recogni-

tion, both political power and economic commodities and wealth seem to flow to

local language and culture bearers via nodal points, metropolitan centers of orga-

nization. Capital has become globalized in the way that longitude finally was in

1911: usable in calibrating any space-time on earth with any otherand even

radially, out into space. Notwithstanding, there is a network structure of metro-politan centers of capital, organized in a tiered or hierarchical fashion such that

there are what have been termed global cities (Sassen 1991) at the first tier, inter-

connected one with another in various kinds of direct flow. The reticulation is

such that between nodes at tier n there are nodes at tier n + 1; locality of language

and culture is scheduled with respect to such a hierarchy.

The situation should be familiar to anyone in the northeastern United States.

The northeast is radially anchored to a single metropolitan area, New York City,flanked by the two endpoints, Boston and Washington, D.C. Between these first-

tier nodes are second-tier nodes, for example between New York and Washington

is Philadelphia. Between Boston and New York is Hartford (with air travel),

though New Haven was once the interstice in the railroad days. Between Philadel-

phia and Washington is Baltimore; between Philadelphia and Baltimore is Wil-

mington. So you can see that this is not a social formation in a merely continuous

smear of alternatingly denser and more rarefied population and associated eco-nomic and political institutional forms; it is a culturally organized tiered structure

of discrete nodes of subtended influence and allegiance.

Increasingly there are forces shaping this kind of reticulation of global space-

time not only in matters of capital but in those of culture and language, in terms of

which ethnolinguistic recognition is constituted. Hence, a groups visibility and

recognition at any tier need not translate into such at higher levels; conversely, any-

body wishing to be nonlocal, to escape locality in a trajectory of self-mobilization,


20/27

can achieve this by degrees over tiers. Observe how in places like rural central Mex-

ico, ethnolinguistically Indian people with aspirations to significant mobility are

not abandoning local languages at this point only for a Mexico Citystandardized

Spanish. They are doing so for English, standardized via broadcast Americana or

through at least seasonal work-related presence in Los Angeles, Chicago, New

York, or slightly lower-tiered metropolitan areas. (There is also a significant repop-

ulation of many parts of rural America, abandoned through the urban migration of

their erstwhile inhabitants. As seasonal agricultural labor transforms into settle-

ment, non-English-speaking immigrants recapitulate a history familiar in earlier

generationsfor example, people in the American countryside fluent in Zapotec

and speaking limited Spanish, but acquiring English.)

The point is that, viewed from the metropoles, languages and cultures are

summoned to positions in a functional hierarchy of locality defined by a radial

geometry around and anchored to tiered nodes. In this way, they have relative

rights to subtend chunks of the globes geopolitical and socioeconomic space-time

as maximal realms to which their recognition can aspire. Within each of these

fractal orders, there is heterogeneity in the politicoeconomics of recognition; out-side-and-above such a tier, only areal experts know that there is internal differ-

ence. (One recalls the splendid, if extreme, faux pas of thenU.S. vice-president

Dan Quayle in referring to the Latin spoken by all the people of Latin Amer-

ica. Such is the indifferently homogenizing consciousness of the regions actual

welter of languages, both indigenous and colonial. This parallels the long-term

pressure within the United States for all speakers of Spanish to be recognized as

Latino.)From relatively more primary nodal points of such fractally tiered intergroup

relations, recognition or nonrecognition are favored politicoeconomic tools made

more complex in the contemporary situation by the number of levels across which

such recognition of legitimate locality has to reach. Observe then the advantage

to the politicoeconomics of recognition of a language group that connects dias-

porically to a high-tier node of capital and cultural flow. Jane Hill (1995, 1998,

2001) has written about anglophone Americans use of what she terms mockSpanish, using utterances like no problemo and grassy ass in contexts of other-

lowering joking and opprobriousness. Such usage, Hill claims, indexes a certain

white, ethnolinguistically apical outsider stance. But note there is no equivalent

effect (in the United States, at least) of using a word or phrase of mock French:

Americans recognize French speakers in a nodally equal-to-superior position of

cultural flow (as do the metropolitan French, of course).

If recognition is a perspective that situates both the recognizers and the rec-

Public Culture

550


21/27

Ethnolinguistic

Recognition

551

ognized in such a tiered structure, then recognition must be by degree, like the

amount of accurate placement of others in Saul SteinbergsNew Yorkermap of the

world. Long ago Leonard Bloomfield (1927) wrote of how such unwritten Native

American languages as Menomini, Ojibwa, Cree of the Algonquian family, and

Winnebago (now, Ho-Chank) of the Siouan family, were invisible even as lan-

guages, as opposed to mere dialects, in Euro-American folk consciousness. A lan-

guageand of course its speakers legitimated use of itcould be recognized

only where there was a print-based standard, as every political, cultural, and eco-

nomic institution in the European experience of nation-statehood had long been

articulating. A language used only in the oral-aural channel, thus failing to come

to print-centered institutional formedness, as for example those cited by Bloom-

field, failed to achieve separate recognition as a language. It remained a dialect,

assimilated projectively to the cultural model that emerged from the urban-

centered standardizations of European vernaculars, where variability across the

space of nonmetropolitan landscapes is captioned by the folk-term dialect.

One still hears talk, among those innocent of any sociolinguistic science, of

the hundreds, if not thousands of dialects used by indigenous American or Aus-tralian peoples at first European contact, with nary a language among them. The

practical point is, for indigenous people to come to recognition in such an institu-

tionally embodied culture of language, they must embrace the paraphernalia of

the cultures languages. Only this makes a language a language, in spite of the

witty remark attributed to Max Weinreich that a language is a dialect with an

army and navy; here, the pen still is mightier than the spoken word. And to be

sure, many Native American ethnolinguistic groups have determined to asserttheir recognizability in schedulings through the print medium, such as the super-

ordinate cultural group institutionally demands for language-hood. (See Bender

2002 for an account of contemporary Cherokee writing in North Carolina, for

example.)

The case is no different, mutatis mutandis, for languages of immigrant ethno-

linguistic minorities within such a nation-state. Imagine the case of a speaker of

a nonstandard(ized) form recognizable as Italian, but only under the doublenegative of being (1) not American English, the standardized language of the

politicoeconomic realm, and (2) while Italian in the larger sense, still not stan-

dard and especially print-compatible Italian from the perspectival horizon of

those who live in a culture of languages so defined. For a long time (the situa-

tion is now changing), even childhood speakers of relatively standard versions of

New World SpanishMexico City, Buenos Aires, Havana, etc.were devalued

in the eyes of the anglophone policymakers. For in the United States, the educa-


22/27

tional system valued Madrid standard as the same-tier nodal other, just as it val-

ued Paris-standard French or Berlin-standard German. At one point, then, fluent

native speakers of these New World Spanishes were remediated in American

high school foreign language classes, taught the language through proper gram-

mar and pronunciation.

So recognition aspired to, fulfilled, or denied comes about through a structure

of institutional sites that have different reach for shaping both languages and our

consciousness of them in relation to issues of identity.

Neoliberal Functionalist Ideologies in an Age of Identity Benedict Anderson

(1983, 1991), among others, has gestured toward the role of grammarians, lexi-

cographers, philologists-folklorists, and other language-and-culture workers in

the furtherance of imperial as well as statist nationalisms, and, we might add, of

ethnonationalist identity claims within these politicoeconomic orders. (See Gal

1995, 2001 for a case history in re Hungarian.) Whatever the professed descrip-

tive aims of the cultural sciences, then, the compilation of archives of words,

grammatical forms, and texts, no less than attempts to standardize in the form ofinstitutionally sponsored linguistic paraphernalia (textbooks, usage guides, spell-

checkers), has had effects on recognition claims. Such activity under the sign of

disinterested and dispassionate science cannot but become the basis for schedul-

ing claims to groupness, or for their suppression. Representations or even pre-

sumptions of ethnolinguistic groupness can incorporate the logic of facticity in

the image of expertise brought to the bar in legal and administrative procedure.

(See the florid failure of realization of this logic by the experts in the infamousMashpee case seeking U.S. federal recognition, laid out in James Cliffords

[1988] account.) Note the classic Andersonian case of Horace Lunt, whose doc-

toral dissertation (1952) described the Macedonian regional variant (dialect) of

what had been, to Slavists, Bulgarian. Lunt is now a Macedonian ethnolinguistic

and hence (ethno)national hero for giving us our language, his descriptive

account becoming a prescriptive one under the sign of separatist identity long-

ings. Compare here, too, all Fourteenth Amendmentequal protection clauselegal actions such as theLau case of 1974 (mandating bilingual education) or the

Ann Arbor Board of Education case of 1979 (mandating special schooling reme-

dies to children speaking only African American Vernacular English). These rest

on such descriptive expertise that scientifically recognizes and taxonomizes

ethnolinguistic difference sufficient to suggest unequal treatment of a category of

people. Language as such is, to be sure, nowhere protected in federal lawthough

the denotational content or equivalent (the what one says) of what constitu-

Public Culture

552


23/27

Ethnolinguistic

Recognition

553

tionalists call speech is. So it is the linguistic expertise of discernment and sci-

entific categorization that can, as a matter of legally relevant fact, suggest recog-

nition to bodies, like courts and agencies, with governmental power.

In this kind of regime of identity claims, the knowledge encapsulated in our

work as linguists and ethnographers, then, is recognized for its concentration on

denotational codes in the image of standard languages precisely to find an issue-

external natural grounding for identity claims to recognition. This is a very uncom-

fortable voice with which we are asked to speak. For observe that our bracketed

scienceby the terms of its participation summoned to a constructed ideolog-

ical dispassion on the image of standard languages and timeless culturesmust

thereby violate a good deal of what it knows about such sociocultural things as

languages are.

And our work projects especially into two kinds of identity-effectuating orga-

nizational sites. One is the classroom and its penumbra, on which are brought to

bear all kinds of standardizing views of language and verbally mediated, cultur-

ally salient identity-conferring forms. So it is not just focus on the language as

such that is involved here, though that is a major factor of linguistics as a policyscience. As well, a groups historical consciousness is created in the form of texts

of ethnic history (see Glazer 1997), identity-indexing genres of textuality (cf.

Grimmschen Mrchen in nineteenth-century Prussia), and so forth. The other

organizational sites central to identity are the museum and archive, in which are

displayed, or at least kept, reference collections of identity-constituting value

turned objectual. These institutionalizations of collectanea insert themselves as

privileged sites of self-recognition within regimes of history and of diasporiza-tion no less than sites of recognition by others within a larger framework of dif-

ference. A language in every archive and a culture in every museum.

Such organizational forms have profound influence on linguistic self-con-

sciousness in a politics of group language and culture, because they provide

targets especially for intellectuals and other elites in struggles over recognition.

Does the group emerge from creating and implementing the paraphernalia of

standardization, with all its appeals to the same rights and privileges as the lan-guage of the regionally anchoring metropole at the relevant tier of reticulation?

Does it result in an advanced prose composition course in, say, Cree or a course in

Cree literary masterpieces at the community college, the state college, or a local,

national-, or international-tier university? Or does the group emerge from consti-

tuting a museum and archive with its appeal via concern for pedigree, prove-

nance, and perfection-of-specimen, to transmission of language and culture over

time and space? Such an establishment of tradition through a reference collection


24/27

provides the authority of continuity in a way that bespeaks current value of

unchanging or essential heritage. Notice that there is such a collection for all

Native Americans now abuilding on the Mall in Washington, D.C., distinct from

the National Museum of Natural History in which languages and cultures find

their repose according to the sense of science. And innumerable local museums,

including one in the Mashantucket Pequot casino, I understand, also assert local

group essentialisms in terms of which heritage identity comes to venues of self-

recognition and claims recognition by others.

In many instances, both avenues of recognition have been launched, of course,

using the full panoply of organizational sites that have, historically, emerged from

cultural science within liberal political orders. But in which of them does the

larger politicoeconomic establishment have an interest? In which, for example,

can culture, and with it, language, be commodified as marketable diversity, as, for

example, in sparking postdiasporic tourism or other culture industries? On Warm

Springs Reservation in central Oregon, near the Kah-Nee-Tah Lodge is the Tribal

Museum, in which the story of the three historically component tribes is told,

with much referencing of ethnolinguistically pregnant words for culture items.The Tribal Museum has a role both internally and, via tourism, externally; it is an

attraction with a certain economic and, thence, political leverage in the regional

state consciousness.

It should be clear from the ubiquity of role of the classroom (broadly speaking)

and the museum/archive in the identity of peoples that there is, in the long run, no

neutrally dispassionate, disinterested linguistic or ethnographic collecting and

describing, whatever the explicit intent of the linguist or anthropologist. There isno neutral or dispassionate translation work possible regardless of the notion of

denotational faithfulness in the narrowest sense that may anchor the work to its

context of value. We, the intellectuals or knowledge workers of our societies,

must engage, directly or indirectly, with the intellectuals and elites of the cur-

rently recognized as well as wannabe groups. We must understand where they

are positioned in the dynamics of scheduling their, and others, identities. We

must position ourselves in some at least potential trajectory of the (re)schedulingimplications of our work in undertaking it and in presiding over or acceding to its

use. In the process of working on languages, we must come to terms with our

own self-orientations to others projects of ethnolinguistic recognition. Only

then should we be entrusted to intervene in the ethnolinguistic identity projects of

others.

Public Culture

554


25/27

Ethnolinguistic

Recognition

555

Michael Silverstein is the Charles F. Grey Distinguished Service Professor in the

Departments of Anthropology, Linguistics, and Psychology and the Committee

on Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities at the University of Chicago,

where his research and teaching center on how cultural communication shapes

language and vice versa. He recently published Talking Politics: The Substance of

Style from Abe to W(2003).

References

Adams, Karen L., and Daniel T. Brink, eds. 1990. Perspectives on official English:

The campaign for English as the official language of the USA. Berlin: Mouton

de Gruyter.

Anderson, Benedict. 1983.Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and

spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

. 1991. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of

nationalism. Rev. and enl. ed. London: Verso.

Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globaliza-tion. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Baron, Dennis E. 1990. The English-only question: An official language for Amer-

icans? New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Bender, Margaret. 2002. Signs of Cherokee culture: Sequoyahs syllabary in East-

ern Cherokee life. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Benjamin, Walter. [1923] 2000. The task of the translator, translated by Harry

Zohn. In The translation studies reader, edited by Lawrence Venuti. London:Routledge.

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1927. Literate and illiterate speech. American Speech 2:

43239.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste,

translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Clifford, James. 1988. Identity in Mashpee. In The predicament of culture:

Twentieth-century ethnography, literature, and art. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Crawford, James, ed. 1992. Language loyalties: A source book on the Official

English controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Donnelly, Ignatius. 1882.Atlantis: The antediluvian world. New York: Harper.

Dunton, A. Davidson, et al. 1965. Canadian Royal Commission on Bilingualism

and Biculturalism. Preliminary report. Ottawa: Queens Printer.


26/27

. 19671970. Canadian Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicultur-

alism. Final report. Ottawa: Queens Printer.

Friedman, Jonathan. 2001. Making small worlds in the global arena: Globaliza-

tion as localization. Paper presented at the 100th annual meeting of the Amer-

ican Anthropological Association, Washington, D.C., 29 November 2001.

Gal, Susan. 1995. Lost in a Slavic sea: Linguistic theories and expert knowledge

in 19th century Hungary. Pragmatics 5: 155 66.

. 2001. Linguistic theories and national images in nineteenth-century Hun-

gary. InLanguages and publics: The making of authority, edited by Susan Gal

and Kathryn A. Woolard. Manchester, England: St. Jerome.

Glazer, Nathan. 1997. We are all multiculturalists now. Cambridge: Harvard Uni-

versity Press.

Hill, Jane H. 1995. Mock Spanish: A site for the indexical reproduction of racism

in American English. Electronic document. University of Chicago Lang-Cult

site (available on-line at www.language-culture.org/l-c.html).

. 1998. Language, race, and white public space.American Anthropologist

100: 680 89.. 2001. Mock Spanish, covert racism, and the (leaky) boundary between

public and private spheres. InLanguages and publics: The making of author-

ity, edited by Susan Gal and Kathryn A. Woolard. Manchester, England: St.

Jerome.

Hilton, James. 1933.Lost horizon. New York: W. Morrow.

Lunt, Horace. 1952.A grammar of the Macedonian literary language. Skopje.

Merlan, Francesca. 1998. Caging the rainbow: Places, politics, and Aborigines ina North Australian town. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Milne, A. A. 1926. Winnie-the-Pooh. London: Methuen.

. 1960. Winnie ille Pu: liber celeberrimus omnibus fere pueris puellisque

notus nunc primum de anglico sermone in Latinum conversus , translated by

Alexander Lenard. London: Methuen.

Povinelli, Elizabeth A. 2002. The cunning of recognition: Indigenous alterities

and the making of Australian multiculturalism. Durham, N.C.: Duke Univer-sity Press.

Rodriguez, Richard. 1982.Hunger of memory: The education of Richard Rodriguez:

an autobiography. Boston: D. R. Godine.

Rosaldo, Renato, and William V. Flores. 1997. Identity, conflict, and evolving

Latino communities: Cultural citizenship in San Jose, California. In Latino

cultural citizenship: Claiming identity, space, and rights, edited by William V.

Flores and Rina Benmayor. Boston: Beacon.

Public Culture

556


27/27

Ethnolinguistic

Recognition

557

Roth, Henry. 1934. Call it sleep. New York: Robert O. Ballou.

Sapir, Edward. 1929. Central and North American languages. InEncyclopaedia

Britannica 14th ed. Vol. 5.

Sassen, Saskia. 1991. The global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton, N.J.:

Princeton University Press.

Woolard, Kathryn A. 1989. Sentences in the language prison: The rhetorical

structuring of an American language policy debate.American Ethnologist16:

26878.

Zentella, Ana Celia. 1996. The Chiquitafication of U.S. Latinos and their lan-

guages, or: Why we need an anthropolitical linguistics. SALSA 3: 118. Texas

Linguistic Forum, vol. 36. Austin: Department of Linguistics, University of

Texas.

Silverstein - The Whens and Wheres - As Well as Hows - Of Ethnolinguistic Recognition

Documents

Transcript of Silverstein - The Whens and Wheres - As Well as Hows - Of Ethnolinguistic Recognition