Pragmatics2:3.

445-449
International
PragmaticsAssociation
DOI: 10.1075/prag.2.3.08gal

MULTIPLICTTY AND CONTENTION

AMONG IDEOLOGIES: A COMMENTARY

SusanGal

It is a pleasureand a challengeto comment on this fine set of papers becausethey

bringtogether a great diversityof ethnographicmaterialsand a range of approaches
towards"linguistic ideology."They are all trying to define and use this conceptual
categoryin new ways, while sensing its familiarity. Woolard urged uS, in her
introduction,to start not with strict definitionof termsbut from the broad premisethat
"linguistic ideology is a mediatinglink betweensocialstructuresand forms of talk." I
hopethat the term can provide a reframingor Nekker cube effect: the realizationthat
manyof the things we have been studying under different labels - common sense
notions,metalinguistics,status/solidarity,rhetoric, languageattitudes,worldviews in
language - can be brought together,revealingfamily resemblances, and inspiringnovel
analyticconnections.
Therefore, my aim here is simply to highlight the most important themes that
emergefrom thesepapersdespitethe followingimportant differencesin subjectmatter:
Thesocialgroups discussedrange from face-to-facecommunitiesof hunter-gatherers
in Venezuela,to Quebecoisindustrial and clericalworkers, Haitian farmers, Catalan
students,US, Haitian and Indonesianscholarsand academics.The linguisticmaterials
discussedare similarly diverse, including interactional genres in classrooms,in
mourhing,in shamanisticsong,as well aswriting systems,detailsof linguisticelicitation
sessions and, most generally,what people explicitlysay- or have historicallywritten --
abouttheir languagesand languageuse. One kind of evidencenotably missingis full
scaleformal or variational analysisof linguisticstructure.
But common themes are more interesting.It may point to a welcome blurring
of the well-known divisionsof scaleand geographywithin our sub-disciplinethat the
scholars gatheredhere includeseveralwho havewritten about socialunits of more than
one scale e.g. national languagepolicy as well as face-to-faceinteraction (Collins,
Errington,Heller, Schieffelin),and have conductedresearchin severaldifferent geo-
politicallocations(Briggs,Collins,Schieffelin).The themesand questionsI would like
to emphasizecan best be grouped around three points.

1.Idea,practice, power

Ideologyis conceptualized- implicitly or explicitly - not only as systematicideas,

culturalconstructions,commonsensenotions, and representations,but a/so as the
446 SusanGal

everydaypracticesin which such notions are enacted;the structuredand experienced

socialrelationsthrough which humansact upon the world. Thus the papershere discuss
not only explicit ideas about language.They also infer ideas about languagefrom the
way that people use it. This combinationrejectsthe implicit linguisticideologyof much
socialtheory and of structuralistlinguistics,which strictlyseparatesthe ideationalfrom
the material, words from actions. And the combination draws on a number of
traditions, some more "local" to linguisticanthropologythan others.First, the analysis
of systematic ideas - here ideas about some aspect of language - continues
ethnoscientific attempts to get at worldview by specifying the semantic relations
between native terms. It continues,as well, symbolic anthropology'sintent to treat
ideologiesas cultural systemsand to deciphertheir logic.Joined to thesetraditions are
contemporaryliterary and philosophicalapproachesthat haverediscoveredrhetoric and
the question of how texts make meaning.
Second, in their attention to practices,these papers rely not only on the
contextual approach of the ethnographyof speaking,but on (Continental) traditions
which, though differing from each other in important ways, neverthelessshare the
emphasis on ideology as embedded in everydaypractices.These include structural
Manrist "subjectivities,"Bourdieu's"symbolicdomination," Gramsci's alwayscontested
"cultural hegemony" and even Foucault'sdiscussionof the "disciplines"of everydaylife.
Thus, Collins infers a set of beliefs about languagefrom Tolowa speakers'
unsoliciteddiscussionsof "favorite words," DiGiacomo interprets classroomquestion-
sequencesbetween Catalan studentsand teachersas enacting a set of assumptions
about what a languageshould be like. Briggs infers ideas about intentionality from the
recipient designand participantstructureof Warao ritual wailing.Errington alludesto
the stratification system encoded in the use Javanesevariants. All buttress their
analysesof practiceswith explicit statementsthat speakersmake about beliefs and
ideas.And it is clear that explicitstatementsneed not be congruentwith what practices
imply. Indeed, Heller focuseson the recurrent contradictionsbetween the beliefs of
bilingual women in Canada, and the bilingual practices that they adopt. Similarly
DiGiacomo showsthat the classroominteractioncontradictswhat the teacherexplicitly
claims about Catalan.
But the papersin this sessionare inspirednot only by the emphasison practice,
but also by social theorists' various attempts to redefine the relationship between
languageand power. In addition to the familiar idea that linguisticpracticesprovide
access to material resources (see Heller) and further provide the means for
participation in decisionmaking ("a voice"), there is the important notion that ideas
about languageand particular linguisticpracticesprovide representationsof reality. If
such representationsare authorizedby societalinstitutions,they serye the interestsof
some groups better than others, and are thus sourcesof socialpower. In one way or
another the papersin this sessionexplorethis "realitymaking"aspectof linguisticideas
and practices,and its relation to socialpower. They reject a view of linguisticideology
as neutral cultural constructions,but equallyreject the view that ideasabout language
and its role in sociallife are simply distortionsof a separatelyknowable reality. They
employ the fruitful strategyof focussingon how actors conceptualize,formulate and
 Multiplicity and contention among ideologies 447

expresstheir disagreementsand conflicts,especiallyconcerningparticular linguistic

practices,
e.g. arguingand disagreeing(Briggs),writing systems(Schieffelin,Collins) or
grammars(DiGiacomo, Errington).

2. Multiplicity of ideologiesand expert knowledge

The focuson conflictshighlightsthe most important aim of thesepapers:to document

the multiplicityof languageideologiesin each of the socialorders discussed.This goes
directlyagainst two widespreadtendencies.In traditional ethnographicapproaches,
including the ethnography of speaking, we often attributed a single, patterned
worldviewto a socialgroup. Briggssuggests this in his critique of Rosaldo'swell-known
descriptionof Ilongot speech acts. Even in variationist studies, which otherwise
celebrateheterogeneity,the speech community was defined as the locus of shared
evaluationsand attitudestowardsvarieties.This excludedvariation from the realm of
whatwe here would call ideology.
More recently,as linguisticpracticesand ideashave been discussedin terms of
symbolicdomination, there has been a tendency to identify a single, rnonolithic
"dominant"ideology.Similarly,althoughcultural hegemonyimpliesmultiplicity and the
likelihood of resistanceor opposition, analysesbased on this notion have usually
juxtaposedone dominant practiceor ideologywith one form of resistance.In contrast,
the papersin this sessionshow that even in smallface-to-facecommunitiesideasabout
languageare various and can be contradictory.Briggs'examplesabout the precedence
of the "thinking-speaking"model of discourseover other modelsamongthe Warao also
suggeststhat even in such face-to-facecommunities,some models are more socially
powerfulthan others. In larger social systemsit is clear that there are discursivebattles
amongelitesfor which ideasare to be institutionalizedin law, education,industry.And
withinalreadyestablishedinstitutionsthe debatesamongdominantideologiescontinue.
Theseessaysare strong in demonstratingthe diversityof ideas about language,how
theychallengeeach other,formulate differentsocialrealities,and thus support different
configurationsof power. Further work might suggestthat such ideas are not easily
resolvedinto dominant and alternativeversions.
An important, related theme is the role of experts- philologists,sociolinguists,
grammarians,teachers - and expert knowledge,in producing conflicting linguistic
ideologies.The frequent and fertile slippagebetween analytic and everydayuses of
terms,the usageof this slippagein creatingcultural capital,the naturalizationand later
de-naturalizationof linguistic facts, and the common strategy of appealing to the
authorityof science,are issuesthat all deservefurther investigation.Several papers
attemptto critique our own academicideologiesof languageby putting them in the
sameanalyticframe as those of the people studied (Briggs,Collins).
Drawing on Foucault,Collins notes how ideasabout language(e.g. that it is an
autonomous systemthat can be studiedin isolationfrom context)provide self-definition
and self-justificationfor expert groups such as linguists in the US academy, and
managers in educationalbureaucracy.He describes"multi-party conflicts"waged with
448 Susan Gal

such ideas, in which the stakesare jobs, and other material advantages.Collins and
Heller are particularly precise in describingdebatesamong different groups who are
in a position to define a broad socialreality,as well as the responsesof thosewho must
collude and calculate with or resist that reality. Schieffelin and Doucet show that
debates about Haitian orthography not only divide the experts, but create/define
constituenciesamong different fractionsof the Haitian elite. Literary people, school
teachers and parents bent on upward mobility for their children defend the pro-
etymology position, and are opposedby those in governmentagenciesworking for adult
literacy. This study, along with Errington's discussion of debates among Javanese
intellectualsand politiciansabout the refigurationof the Javaneselanguage,bear on
my next point.

3. Linguistic ideologiesand other conceptual systems

Ideologiesof languageare important for socialanalysisbecausethey are not only about

language. They envision and enact connections between linguistic and social
phenomena. Briggs comments explicitly on this, but all the papers offer interesting
examples.As Ochs, Borker and others pointed out years ago, cultural constructionsof
gender are often linked to ideasabout waysof speakingin diversesocialgroups.Many
of the papers I am discussinghere focus on another modern category of identity:
'nation.'By
contrast,a somewhatdifferent body of literature in linguisticanthropology
shows language ideology to be about conceptionswe might label aesthetic, moral or
epistemological. These concern intentionality, sincerity, emotion, truth and evidence,
sources of thought and responsibility,clarity, simplicity. If at first glance these do not
appear to be related to group identity, a closer look reveals that they too are often
deeply enmeshed with conceptionsabout the nation.
'nation' 'language'
Both and are terms for cultural categoriesthat are used for
analysis as well as in everyday life. In the course of the 19th century, European
philosophy,socialthought,and political practicedid the ideologicalwork of making the
connectionbetween them appear a necessary, natural,and self-evidentone. Although
later generations of linguists and anthropologistswould work similarly hard to de-
naturalize the link between language, race and social group, the connection was
borrowed and recontextualized all over the globe. There are, however, at least two
'nation,'
modern senses of as Eric Hobsbawm has recently reminded us, both
conceivedas having a'state'as its ideal home, One is a cultural relation between state
and subject based on political participation and known as citizenship;the other is based
on some imagined, shared cultural unity. Their relation to ideas about languageare
interestingly different.
In the first case, a uniformity of language throughout the nation-state is
understood as necessaryfor free communication,an informed and mobile citizenry who
can exercisepolitical rights. Notice that referential adequacy,simplicity, clarity, and
individual intentionality in languageand thought are aestheticand moral notions often
invoked in such discourse.In the secondcaselanguageis understoodas an expression
 Multiplicity and contention among ideologies 449

of communal spirit and the uniformity of language is important not for efficient
communicationand broad participationbut as proof that the speakingsubject is an
authenticmember of the nation, linking speaker and languageto the past and its
(invented)traditions.Different moral and aestheticissuesare involved in each case.
In both of these well known conceptionsthere is a logic of boundednessthat
invitesus to imagine - against the ubiquitous evidenceof variation in languageand
society- the happy fusion of a circumscribedand internallyhomogeneouslanguagewith
a similarlyconfigurednation. There are certainlyother cultural relationsbetween state
and subjects,for instanceone typical of state-socialistsocieties.Any suchrelation, like
"nation,"and in common with other categoriesof political theory and practice,such as
"the people,""the masses,""the public" includesimplicit assumptionsabout language
that deserveexploration.Notice too, that both ideasof the nation can be evoked in the
samecountry, can be used by minorities,indigenouspopulationsor competingelites
to constitutethemselvesand argue with each other. Claims to the national self are
madenot only to internal audiencesbut to other nations,and as Errington showsfor
Indonesia,are involved in handling complexrelationsto internationalcapital.
The implicit logics I have outlined form the backgroundto the more specific
discursivebattles described in these papers. What part of the population is really
Haitian and what standardizedwritten or spoken languagewill representthem? One
versionof Catalan is to be the authenticone, but which current speakerswill be able
to understandit? Why make Javanese- with its levelsof social differentiation - into
an internallyhomogeneousethnic language?
In the courseof highlightingthe multiplicityof linguisticideologies- as ideasand
practice- these papers begin two further and related tasks: 1. to understand the
semioticprocessesby which chunks of linguisticmaterial (".g. orthographic systems,
archaicvs. new forms) gain significanceas representationsof particular parts of
populations;2. to unravel the semioticand rhetoricalmeansby which our own expert
theoriesas well as everyday and political argumentslink together such apparently
diverseculturalcategoriesaslanguage,spelling,nation,gender,simplicity,intentionality,
authenticity,development,tradition.