By André Ramos Chacón
May, Stephen (2017). Language, imperialism, and the modern nation-state system. In Ofelia García, Nelson Flores, and Massimiliano Spotti, The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society (pp. 35-53). Oxford University Press
For Stephen May diglossia is the prevalent linguistic reality of postcolonial nations: it undeniably is one of the most important legacies of empire-building throughout the pre-modern ages. For May, diglossia historically allowed linguistic minorities to acquire imperial lingua francas, while at the same time led to the loss of local, ethnic, and minority languages. Come the modern nation-state system and find diglossia under heavy attack as linguistic homogenization becomes a key political pursuit for the creation of national identities. May’s hypothesis is thus that modern nation-state systems, and overall the globalized world, have negatively impacted minority languages despite the promotion of language rights in international law and international institutions (like UNESCO). Additionally, May argues that international legislation centers on “national minorities” —minority groups that have been historically associated with particular territories—, and not immigrant minorities —a reality that differently challenges the oppressive and unjust language homogenization processes that characterize modern nation-state systems.
One of May’s key insights on the relation between monolingualism and the nation-state is that regional languages —minority languages— were despised by political elites because they were conceived as vestiges of ancient regimes or empires. That is, the dissemination of single, homogeneous national languages became an essential pilar in the construction of new identities for new republics (it symbolized a rupture with pre-modern, plurilingual, and ill-defined empires). Promotion of a national language thus came to be conceived as the destruction of minority languages, and education as the most important system for national linguistic standardization. In sum, May argues that perhaps, in the modern nation-state system, it would be even more accurate to conceive minority languages as systematically minoritized. Such processes of minoritization would account for :
a) The political nature of distinctions between languages and dialects.
b) The pathologization of minority languages and their speakers as unfit for the modern world.
c) Present-day linguistic homogeneity as an unnatural and undesirable result of late 19th century and early 20th century nationalism.
May also discusses minority languages in terms of rights and international legislation. Essentially, May demonstrates that minority language rights have not been legislated in terms of the rights of language communities, but only in terms of the linguistic rights of individuals —a fact that perpetuates diglossia and does not help the groups neither their constituents. Also, declarations and decrees by the United Nations (UN) have generally recommended states to protect minority languages and communities, but never legally bound nations to implement language policies. Additionally, May states that immigrant communities of significant numbers have unfortunately not been contemplated in the legislation. The reader’s inference is thus that the minoritization of languages and communities has not decreased but increased in the 21st century.
To conclude, May argues that the principle of linguistic homogeneity remains a central organizing principle for contemporary nation-states. Also, that though indigenous minorities have gained ground in the acquisition of language rights, immigrant minorities have so far lacked all legislative support to do so. Nation-states are still not required by any transnational entity to implement linguistic policies, hence promotion of migrant language rights it is still, in a globalized world, a matter of each nation’s domestic policy.
May’s article is useful as a framework for analysis of historical diglossia and language legislation across the southern hemisphere (Latin America and Africa). Also, for interesting comparisons in the struggle for acquisition of language rights between indigenous and migrant communities in the western world (US and Europe). One could also say that May’s article helps as an initial reference to the exploration of the legislative sources that lie behind the disparate achievements of indigenous and other minoritized groups.