published_or_final_version / English Studies / Master / Master of Arts

This contribution to the understanding of the dynamics of domination and resistance will focus on the nature and development of Irish language activism in Belfast, Northern Ireland, and the subsequent response of the British State when faced with this challenge to its cultural hegemony. The research is theoretically framed using Raymond Williams’ model of cultural hegemony and James Scott's model of disguise and surveillance, and is based on fifteen months of in-depth fieldwork in Northern Ireland, which I undertook from February 13, 1990 to May 10, 1991. It has been argued that not all Irish language activism is revolutionary, but instead, to use Williams' terminology, has both alternative and oppositional ideologies as major components. While both alternative and oppositional Irish language activists have recovered the Irish language as "an effective element of the present," and are using it to challenge the legitimacy of British cultural hegemony in Northern Ireland, the difference lies in their ultimate goals. Alternative Irish language activists are seeking a permanent space for the Irish language in Northern Ireland, regardless of the political outcome of the present conflict. On the other hand, oppositional Irish language activists, have made the Irish language an integral part of their struggle for self-determination. Alternative Irish language activists have focused their efforts on demanding that the public status of the Irish language be raised, and on building an Irish-medium education system that would be the foundation of a permanent Irish language infrastructure in Northern Ireland. Central to oppositional Irish language activism is the struggle for the cultural and linguistic rights of republican prisoners. However, the State justifies the shunning of these demands by citing the security risk they may engender. Oppositional Irish language activists, in particular Sinn Fein (the political wing of the Republican Movement), have adopted a strategy of "encouraging" and “supporting" alternative Irish language groups, thus creating the a priori appearance of a common goal. Since Sinn Fein does not assume a direct leadership role within the Irish language movement, any refusal of the cultural demands of alternative Irish language activists by testate, can be labelled as discriminatory toward the legitimate cultural rights of an ethnic minority. Hence, efforts by the State to dismiss the challenge by alternative Irish language activists by branding it as revolutionary, have been ineffectual. British cultural hegemony in Northern Ireland, it is argued, is both powerful and vulnerable. The reaction of the British State to the challenge of Irish language activists has varied, at times with its interpretation of the challenge, and at other times seemingly at will. Prior to 1980, attempts were made to exclude the Irish language and culture from Northern Ireland, branding it as "foreign” and "subversive." Since 1989, the approach of the British State has been a re-interpretation of the Irish language and culture into the Northern Ireland context, recognizing it as one of the "two traditions" of the State. This move to neutralize Irish language resistance, while welcomed by many alternative Irish language activists, has seriously ruptured the unity of the majority in Northern Ireland. As a result, the British government finds itself at an impasse. Because of strong oppositional and alternative Irish language resistance, the State is prevented from "excluding" Irish language and culture in Northern Ireland, but similarly, differences within influential and dominant groups will not allow the conciliation of Irish language resistance by a “process of incorporation." The stage is thus set for an examination of the background, growth, and durability of the Irish language movement, juxtaposed with the hegemonic determination of a State bent on cultural subjugation, in the boisterous environment of Northern Ireland.

This contribution to the understanding of the dynamics of domination and resistance will focus on the nature and development of Irish language activism in Belfast, Northern Ireland, and the subsequent response of the British State when faced with this challenge to its cultural hegemony. The research is theoretically framed using Raymond Williams’ model of cultural hegemony and James Scott's model of disguise and surveillance, and is based on fifteen months of in-depth fieldwork in Northern Ireland, which I undertook from February 13, 1990 to May 10, 1991. It has been argued that not all Irish language activism is revolutionary, but instead, to use Williams' terminology, has both alternative and oppositional ideologies as major components. While both alternative and oppositional Irish language activists have recovered the Irish language as "an effective element of the present," and are using it to challenge the legitimacy of British cultural hegemony in Northern Ireland, the difference lies in their ultimate goals. Alternative Irish language activists are seeking a permanent space for the Irish language in Northern Ireland, regardless of the political outcome of the present conflict. On the other hand, oppositional Irish language activists, have made the Irish language an integral part of their struggle for self-determination. Alternative Irish language activists have focused their efforts on demanding that the public status of the Irish language be raised, and on building an Irish-medium education system that would be the foundation of a permanent Irish language infrastructure in Northern Ireland. Central to oppositional Irish language activism is the struggle for the cultural and linguistic rights of republican prisoners. However, the State justifies the shunning of these demands by citing the security risk they may engender. Oppositional Irish language activists, in particular Sinn Fein (the political wing of the Republican Movement), have adopted a strategy of "encouraging" and “supporting" alternative Irish language groups, thus creating the a priori appearance of a common goal. Since Sinn Fein does not assume a direct leadership role within the Irish language movement, any refusal of the cultural demands of alternative Irish language activists by testate, can be labelled as discriminatory toward the legitimate cultural rights of an ethnic minority. Hence, efforts by the State to dismiss the challenge by alternative Irish language activists by branding it as revolutionary, have been ineffectual. British cultural hegemony in Northern Ireland, it is argued, is both powerful and vulnerable. The reaction of the British State to the challenge of Irish language activists has varied, at times with its interpretation of the challenge, and at other times seemingly at will. Prior to 1980, attempts were made to exclude the Irish language and culture from Northern Ireland, branding it as "foreign” and "subversive." Since 1989, the approach of the British State has been a re-interpretation of the Irish language and culture into the Northern Ireland context, recognizing it as one of the "two traditions" of the State. This move to neutralize Irish language resistance, while welcomed by many alternative Irish language activists, has seriously ruptured the unity of the majority in Northern Ireland. As a result, the British government finds itself at an impasse. Because of strong oppositional and alternative Irish language resistance, the State is prevented from "excluding" Irish language and culture in Northern Ireland, but similarly, differences within influential and dominant groups will not allow the conciliation of Irish language resistance by a “process of incorporation." The stage is thus set for an examination of the background, growth, and durability of the Irish language movement, juxtaposed with the hegemonic determination of a State bent on cultural subjugation, in the boisterous environment of Northern Ireland. / Arts, Faculty of / Anthropology, Department of / Graduate

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Catholic University of America, 1943. / Reproduced from type-written copy. "Selected bibliography": p. xiii-xx.

Education in Senegal has since Independence in 1960 relied on French, the language of the colonizer and a foreign language for most Senegalese learners. In Senegal, national languages refer to African languages, which are not officially enacted as languages of instruction in formal schooling in comparison to French, the former colonial and current official language. However, in 2015, the Ministry of Education adopted a bilingual education policy based on national (Senegalese) languages. This is due in no small part to the advocacy work of Senegalese national language activists or militants (strong advocates in French, drawing on a political connotation). This study looks at these self-proclaimed militants’ lived experiences with national languages and education, the extent of their multi-generational work and network, and their influence in shaping the language-in-education policy landscape at what appears to be a moment of “critical juncture” with the adoption of a bilingual education policy within the Ministry of National Education. A qualitative case study, it draws on in-depth interviews with these militants, historical and policy document analysis, and participant-observations to answer the following question: “How and why have self-proclaimed militants advocated for the use of national languages in the Senegalese educational system since the 1950s, and what are their current contributions at this critical moment in possible language-in-education policy change?” Situated in a sociocultural framework, this study draws on Walter Mignolo’s (1991) decolonial theory of “border thinking” and Senegalese decolonial authors to amplify the voices, innovations, and contributions of Senegalese bi-/multilingual education researchers, practitioners, and advocates. Decolonizing and delinking knowledge is particularly important in the field of bi-/multilingual education and literacy as research and practice are often exported from the Global North to Global South through international development and aid programs, when in fact, contexts of the Global North would gain more in learning from models of the Global South. In the context of Senegal, the militants’ engagement in bilingual education is an act of self-determination and sovereignty, to move away from inherited and internalized patterns of colonial education and at the same time navigate the dynamics of aid and development in education, in particular, international donor agencies agendas and funding mechanisms.

published_or_final_version / Public Administration / Master / Master of Public Administration

published_or_final_version / Asian Studies / Master / Master of Arts

Text in Afrikaans / Die term "Alternatiewe Afrikaans" is die afgelope dekade telkens gebruik in taalpolitieke publikasies, maar tot dusver is daar relatief min gedoen om die begrip te analiseer, om die "Alternatiewe Afrikaanse beweging" histories te kontekstualiseer, en om die "beweging" se taalpolitieke uitgangspunte en publ ikasies krities te evalueer as ideologiese teenpool vir Standaardafrikaans of "Establishment Afrikaans". Hierdie proefskrif poog om, na aanleiding van 'n analise van die politieke faktore rondom die opkoms en "kanoni sering" van Standaardafri kaans, die totstandkoming van (wit) Afrikanerhegemonie en die daarmee gepaardgaande breuk in die Afrikaanse taalgemeenskap, die ontstaan van die term "Alternatiewe Afrikaans" en die taalpolitieke "agenda" van die "Alternatiewe beweging" te ondersoek. In die eerste hoofstuk word die taalsosiologie en taalpolitiek as studieterreine ontleed en terme soos "politiek", "mag" en "ideologie" en die verskei e wyses waarop hull e met taa 1 in verband gebri ng kan word, word ondersoek. Die "Kritiese Linguistiek" word onder die loep geneem en die hegemoniemodel van Gramsci word bespreek as deelteoretiese raamwerk vir hierdie studie. In die tweede hoofstuk word die taalpolitiek van Standaardafrikaans bespreek aan die hand van die volgende temas: Afrikanernasionalisme en Afrikaans, die politisering en mitologisering van die ontstaansgeskiedenis van Afrikaans, en die Afrikaanse taalbewegings. Tel kens word "alternatiewe", ontmitologiserende beskouings teenoor "standaardbeskouings" van die temas gestel. Die ontsluiting van 'n alternatiewe hegemonie, verbind met die "Alternatiewe beweging" en "People's Education", word in hoofstuk 3 bespreek en die term "Alternatiewe Afrikaans" word ontleed. Daar word besin oor die "Alternatiewe beweging" as "taalbeweging". In die vierde hoofstuk word die ideologie van "bevryding" in 'n aantal tekste wat met "Alternatiewe Afrikaans" geassosieer word, geanaliseer aan die hand van verskeie tegnieke uit die kritiese diskoersanalise. Manipulatiewe en propagandistiese diskursiewe praktyke word uitgelig. Die "depolitisering" en "demokratisering" van Afrikaans word in die slothoofstuk bespreek. Daar word aangetoon dat "Alternatiewe Afrikaans" deur 'n duidelike polities-mobiliserende agenda onderle word, dat die varieteit 'n verpolitiseerde "ideologiese metalek" van Afrikaans is en uiteindelik 'n etiket is vir " 'n ideologie van bevryding" ten opsigte van die heersende hegemoniese strukture / During the past decade the term "Alternative Afrikaans" has frequently been used in publications on language politics. Until recently little has been done concerning the analysis of this term and the contextualisation of the "Alternative Afrikaans movement". The politico-linguistic premises and publications of the "Alternative movement", as an ideological opposition to Standard Afrikaans or "Establishment Afrikaans", have not yet been sufficiently and critically evaluated. The aim of this thesis is to investigate the origin of the term "Alternative Afrikaans" and the politico-linguistic "agenda" of the "Alternative movement", with analogical reference to the political factors surrounding the rise and "canonisation" of Standard Afrikaans, the establishment of (white) Afrikaner hegemony and the concomitant division within the Afrikaans language community. In the first chapter the sociology of language and language politics are discussed, and terms such as "politics", "power" and "ideology" and the various ways in which they may be connected with language, are examined. The field of "Critical Linguistics" and Gramsci's hegemonic model are discussed as partial theoretical frameworks for this study. In the second chapter the language politics of Standard Afrikaans is discussed on the basis of the following themes: Afrikaner Nationalism and Afrikaans, the politicisation and mythologising of the ontogenesis of Afrikaans, and the Afrikaans language movements. "Alternative", demythologising views, contrary to the "standard" views on these themes, are discussed. The develpment of an alternative hegemony, linked with the "Alternative movement" and "People's Education", is considered in chapter three and the term "Alternative Afrikaans" is analysed. The "Alternative movement" is analysed as "language movement". In chapter four the ideology of "liberation" in a number of texts associated with "Alternative Afrikaans" is analysed on the basis of various techniques used in critical discourse analysis. Manipulative and propagandistic discursive practices are highlighted. The "depoliticisation" and "democratisation" of Afrikaans are considered in the final chapter. It is argued that "Alternative Afrikaans" is based on a specific agenda of political mobilisation, that this variety is a politicised "ideological metalect" of Afrikaans and ultimately a "label" for an "ideology of liberation" with regard to the prevailing hegemonical structures / Afrikaans & Theory of Literature / D. Litt. et Phil. (Afrikaans)

published_or_final_version / English Studies / Master / Master of Arts

published_or_final_version / abstract / English / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy