From nation-state repressive homogeneity to neo-liberal commodified multiculturalism

Language use in formal education settings has patterns of form and function that are considerably narrower than those which exist across human language behavior in general. The varieties of language (standardized, national languages, often through written

modes), the roles that interlocutors take up (expert teacher, novice student), and the kinds of turn taking exchanges that occur (initiation-response-feedback) provide a more or less rigid structure to the linguistic practices of participants (Dalton-Puffer, 2007; McHoul, 1978). Education typically aims to socialize participants into specific language practices and away from others, with the practices that are chosen being those that will privilege people already in positions of power (Bourdieu, 1991; Pennycook, 2001). As such, formal education has often been a key means through which nation-states have attempted to govern and ultimately assimilate internal diversity, whether through overt means such as obligatory boarding schools for Indigenous children established in the Anglophone colonial countries (Canada, US, Australia; see McCarty, 2013 for an overview in the US context) and elsewhere in the world, or more subtle forms of assimilation. In many contexts around the world this has meant that languages in use in a certain place have been excluded from the schools established in that place, because the schools orient towards linguistic practices that are in use in a center of national (or international) power, elsewhere (Tollefson & Tsui, 2004). Languages that are excluded from education are

17

pushed down the linguistic hierarchy in their place of origin, becoming minoritized (May, 2006)3 or displaced, and eventually may cease to be used.

Nationalist schooling has not only been detrimental through fostering language hierarchies, but more significantly it can create multiple forms of disadvantage for those who are erased by the system (whether for linguistic or other reasons). Ivan Illich (1970) has argued that obligatory schooling as designed by a dominant social group is a key mechanism for creating and controlling social hierarchy in Latin America and in the world in general, as poorer classes with less access to formal education are "schooled in a sense of inferiority" (p. 7) on the grounds of having restricted membership to the

discourses and communities of formal schooling. Maldonado Alvarado (2002) argues that writing-focused education intensifies this: "La escritura abre espacios de sometimiento que aprovechan las sociedades dominadoras, y todos los 'analfabetas' dominados, independientemente de su 'ignorancia', conocen y sienten las caracteristicas de la dominación mediante lo escrito" (Writing opens spaces of subjugation that dominating societies take advantage of, and all of the dominated 'illiterate' people, independently from their 'ignorance', know and feel the characteristics of domination through writing) (p. 41). Building his critique within the context of the development of Spanish education in the multilingual, oral Indigenous language ecology of Oaxaca, Maldonado Alvarado

3

While there may be numerous minority (numerically non-dominant) language groups present in an educational context, this frequently includes speakers who have somewhat recently come to reside in that context. There are common concerns between all non-dominant language groups in education, however this study will consider specifically those languages that are autochthonous or originate in the place in question. May (2001) differentiates between these groups, labeling them national minorities (minoritized groups), and ethnic minorities (immigrant groups).

18

joins Illich in pointing out ways that the promise of human development and enablement through education can result instead in submission and restriction.

Unsurprisingly, the exclusion of local language practices from formal education, and the adherence to a prescriptive, non-local speech norm has been found to be

detrimental to children's acquisition of literacy and content material, as well as their social and psychological development (Cummins, 2009; Thomas & Collier, 1997), while inclusion of these languages can have positive effects on overall academic outcomes and identity development (Freire, 1969; García, 2009a; Hornberger, 1998, 2005). Overt assimilation policies have fallen out of favor since the post-WWII human rights era, and policies that promote language diversity have increased in many parts of the world. A variety of what might be called pro-diversity education approaches now exist (as discussed further in section 1.3.2 below), aiming to include diverse learners in formal education, and these approaches appear to be increasing around the globe.4

Implementation and political support for such approaches is far from stable in many contexts however (Hornberger, 2009), as will be discussed in greater detail in the context of Mexico and Oaxaca (see chapters 2 and 4).

Pro-diversity education in practice has been critiqued as resulting in the

commodification and essentialization of minoritized languages and cultures within a neo- liberal framework of sanitized multiculturalism (García, 2005; Muehlmann, 2008). The new ways that language diversity is approached in schools-- often through pre-existing

4 _{Including North America (De Korne, 2010, 2013; Warhol, 2012), Latin America (Hamel, 2008a, 2008b;} López, 2009), Southeast Asia (Bautista, Bernardo, & Ocampo, 2009; Kosonen, 2005), South Africa (Bloch & Alexander, 2003) and Europe (Hélot & Young, 2006; Le Nevez, Hélot, & Erhart, 2010).

19

hierarchical, normative frameworks-- may ultimately assimilate and render diverse human subjects governable, with impacts similar to those of monolingual norms

(Comaroff & Comaroff, 2009; Povinelli, 2011). Additionally the promotion of language diversity in the form of marketable plurilingual skills may risk supporting "a

commodification of language in service of transnational corporations" and a

homogenizing neoliberal agenda (Flores, 2013, p.515). These concerns indicate the need to pay close attention to minoritized language use in education and the social relations that it creates. In summary, schools alone can neither eradicate Indigenous languages nor ensure their social acceptance (Hornberger, 2008; May & Aikman, 2003); however, education initiatives remain central to any project that seeks to create new potentialities for marginalized languages and peoples (Levinson et al., 1996, p.19).

1.3.2 Pro-diversity education approaches: From strict immersion to plurilingual