Differentiating the Three: Creating an Indigenous Linguistic Hierarchy 86

Hierarchy

The politicization of the Indigenous languages, and the movement towards detaching them from ethnolinguistic identity, is exemplified in the fact that three Indigenous languages were chosen not merely for pragmatic purposes, but also as ‘representatives’ of the body of Indigenous languages as a whole. As noted above,

FOIRN’s discussion of the impact of the initial legislation argues that it serves to valorize and de-stigmatize all of these languages by recognizing these three. Again, a paradox exists in the way this valorization is itself being enacted, since by grouping all Indigenous languages together in a mass whose status can be effectively represented by only three of the many spoken in the region, the value of each of them is diminished. A relationship among 22 different languages (each of the 21 Indigenous languages, plus Portuguese) is turned into a relationship between two groups – Indigenous and Portuguese. The only non-Indigenous speaker at the UEA event, Catarino, the town council representative, was the one to call attention to the potential negative implications of the official language legislation for languages other than the three that were declared official:

Será que a co-oficialização das línguas não acelerou o processo de extinção de outras? Será que a distinção de três línguas não vai acelerar a extinção de outras que não vão ser assim tão, ah, valorizadas? Não que não se devemos valorizar as três línguas, no meu ponto de vista, deve-se valorizar todas as linguas, todas as etnias, todas as 22 etnias, que são todas importantes no município.

Is it possible that the co-officialization of the languages didn’t accelerate the process of extinction of the others? It is possible that the distinction of three

languages won’t accelerate the extinction of others that won’t likewise be so, ah, valorized? It’s not that we shouldn’t valorize the three languages, in my view, we should valorize all the languages, all the etnias, all of the 22 etnias, because they are all important in the municipality.

By contrast, Edilson Melgueiro, who focused his concern on the possibility of language loss, continually emphasized that he was limiting his comments to consideration of what was happening with the three languages that had been declared official, and how several studies have demonstrated the limited knowledge of these languages among urban youth (including most recently, the Master’s thesis written by his wife, Zilma Henrique

Melgueiro [2012]). As quoted above, Max Menezes mentioned the other languages in order to say that they, too, were actually included within this policy, as they are protected in their territories. He further highlighted the need to work within the schools to move the discourse about linguistic diversity from the idea of multilingualism as a problem to one in which it is seen as a resource (Ruiz 1995):

Tem que começar a dicutir a questão das línguas, as três línguas of-co-oficiais, uh-u-u-a escola aqui, Colêgio São Gabriel, disse - é, é um problema. É muita língua. Isso, só vai dá dificuldade. Eu disse, olha gente – isso é uma riqueza. Não é um problema, isso é uma riqueza. Nos temos ter orgulho de morar numa região que tem 23 povos indígenas, cada povo com suas línguas, a língua, com seus custumes, com sua tradição – é por que não valorizar, né?

We have to start talking about the question of the languages, the three co-official languages, uh-u-u – the school here, Colêgio São Gabriel, says – it’s a problem. It’s a lot of languages. This is only going to cause problems. I say, look people – this is a richness. This is not a problem, this is a richness. We have to have pride at living in a region that has 23 Indigenous peoples, each people with their languages, a language, with their customs, their tradition – and why not valorize it, right?

[emphasis based on original speech]

Here, Max adopts the discourse of linguistic diversity and emphasizes the total number of languages spoken, but speaks only about the challenge of incorporating even the three official languages into the educational sector. Diversity is important, he says, but can be represented symbolically through the three largest languages in order to be more

economically and pragmatically realistic.

The ideological debate being raised here is an extremely contentious one, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 6, about whether it is more important to work on those languages that are at greatest risk of disappearing (Catarino drew attention in his speech to his experience in the Werekena community of Nazaré, where most residents now speak Nheengatú and only the eldest speak the severely endangered Werekena language) or in fact, focus on those that are already strong in order to reinforce the unity of the Indigenous people. This ideological debate revolves not only around what it means to protect and promote languages, but also, as discussed above, what form Indigenous identity should take in the contemporary Brazilian state, especially in urban areas. The official language legislation falls on the latter side of this debate, demonstrating a

commitment to a pan-Indigenous identity, primarily significant as a political construction, over and above individualized ethnolinguistic identities that are associated with cultural practices, beliefs, and stories. This position reflects the shift that Fleming (2010)

discusses in terms of the shift from marking patrilineality to performativity. Pointing out the politicized and performative nature of this pan-Indigenous identity should not be taken as a critique of its ‘authenticity’, as these reactionary beliefs have been thoroughly deconstructed within the anthropological literature (Conklin and Graham 1995; Jackson 1995). Indeed, the use of a discourse of authenticity in supporting individual

ethnolinguistic identities is, of course, also a politicized stance, especially in the focus on preserving certain cultural practices – including language – without necessarily working to revive others, such as the isolated lifestyles of sib-based malokas. Language

revitalization in particular draws out the conflict among these two ideological positions held by Indigenous actors, as the question of whether or not expressions of pan-

Indigenous identity can appropriately meet the needs of the entire population come to the fore in the multilingual Rio Negro.

Although advocates argue that the legal elevation of Tukano, Nheengatú, and Baniwa serves as an act of valorization for all of the languages of the region, some speakers of non-official Indigenous languages resent the establishment of a legalized symbolic hierarchy of linguistic codes. To be sure, sociolinguistic power differences existed long before the law, both as a result of Indigenous social structures and language ideologies and due to the actions and ideological influence of colonizers and

missionaries. The former pattern is most saliently exemplified in the lower status ascribed to speakers of Uaupés-Japurá languages and their historical enslavement by the Tukano people, as well as their ongoing exclusion from the system of linguistic exogamy commonly practiced in the region (Stenzel 2005; Epps 2008). External sociolinguistic interventions have included, most obviously, the way in which Nheengatú was introduced to the region, discussed in Chapter 1, as well as the extent to which the Catholic Church was involved in elevating Tukano to the status of a regional lingua franca along the Uaupés, especially in the mission centres known as the “Tukano Triangle” (Freire and Rosa 2003; Aikhenvald 2003c). Given the depth of linguistic diversity in the region, and the historical importance of the link between language and identity in the exogamous

social system, the choice of these three cannot be seen as semiotically neutral. The co- officialization of these three languages, and the claim that this law represents all

Indigenous peoples of the area, works to entextualize the ideological position privileging pan-Indigenous identity rather than ethnolinguistic affiliation – simultaneously erasing the relevance of the distinct identities of speakers of non-official languages, including those from language families and cultural groups like the Yanomami and Uaupés-Japurá whose practices are radically different from the three politically-dominant cultural groups (Baré, Tukanoan, and Arawakan).