05.10.2005
Minority languages and communists
Despite a recent increase in the number of Welsh speakers, the Welsh language remains far from secure. So what should be the attitude of communists towards minority languages? Bob Davies argues that we need to take Welsh and other minority languages rights seriously
According to various statistics, there are currently around 6,000 languages on this planet. These range from the isolated in the various Pacific islands to, for example, the 200 in Europe, to the huge diversity in countries like Venezuela and Indonesia. By the end of this century, however, it has been suggested that the number of languages spoken will be down to around 3,000 and fewer than 300 of these will be secure. Within the next generation or two, then, if such estimates are correct, thousands of languages are set to dwindle away. Of course, the fact that languages have died and will continue to do so is no surprise. All languages have been and will continue to exist in a state of flux. As social constructions they evolve and are influenced by politics and society generally. Global capitalist development has accelerated this process, adding a degree of inevitability. Under such circumstances, it is perhaps clear why, given the patterns of migration and displacement, fewer and fewer minority or 'lesser used' languages still have a vibrant local base or 'unique homeland' which they can call their 'own'. Only a few languages throughout the world are now considered to be of high prestige. English, perhaps, is the prime example. That language dominates the media and the marketplace, school systems and bureaucracies. On today's planet, almost everywhere people absorb the same music and watch the same films - frequently from Hollywood and predominately in English. It is thus easy to see why local cultures and languages, which are less conspicuous and less alluring, are in constant danger of falling into disuse. Indeed, to speak a minority language can often be perceived as a waste of time and a parochial diversion to the international requirements of an increasingly economically integrated planet. We communists do not treat the question of language and language rights lightly. If, for example, Marri-Djabin, an ancient Aboriginal language spoken now by a handful of people in one small town in Australia, dies out or Mohawk and the hundreds of other Indian languages heard only in isolated communities in parts of Canada continue to vanish over the next couple of decades, that is not an insignificant matter for us. Communists must provide answers for all social questions. Languages provide a unique historical reference for the understanding of peoples, nationalities and cultures. We are not out to destroy a particular culture, but to understand it, as we attempt to understand class society and social organisation. Communists, though, are not sentimental about the issue either. We need to take the question of language rights seriously not out of some nostalgia for a mythologised past, but because the fight for socialism is the fight for democracy - including the democratic right to speak the language of one's choice. Historically, the question of language and, in particular, minority or 'lesser used' languages have often fuelled passionate debates, strong campaigns and numerous political movements. This is not surprising. Where there is a struggle around the language question, that means there will also be a struggle for other individual and collective rights, for democracy or self-determination. Communists are for the merging of the world's peoples, cultures and thus languages on a voluntary and democratic basis. The multiplicity of languages is certainly a barrier to communication and I would argue for the existence of a single world language as part of a single world culture - enriched by what is best in all existing cultures. The important point to stress, however, is the phrase 'on a voluntary and democratic basis'. The success of our fight for global human emancipation depends on the struggle of the vast majority of the world's peoples. The disappearance of minority languages must be a natural process: if people choose no longer to speak a given language, so be it - but that has to be their choice. Any democrat, let alone communist, would recognise that point. Its demise must not come about be as a consequence of coercion. Language repression History has already provided us with examples which testify to the fact that thousands of minority languages have often suffered and diminished precisely due to coercive measures taken by a particular state or other authority. The many people who spoke Yushi, an Amerindian tribal language, at residential schools during the early part of the last century, for example, were often beaten, mocked and humiliated, as well as subjected to sexual and physical abuse. As Mark Abley highlights, the US establishment believed in the "absolute faith that such behaviour was righteous" (M Abley Spoken here - travels among threatened languages Toronto 2004, p62). "Lesser languages," he continues, ""¦ had to be replaced for christian values recognised only in English." Similarly, for example, we saw the authorities in France insist upon French as the sole language of the republic. During the early part of the last century, children speaking Provenà§al or Occitan were ridiculed and had their hands and knuckles struck. The state drove the idea that French was the only legitimate language. Any other represented "barbarous regionalism" (ibid p133). Not to be outdone, the British establishment too - surprise, surprise - was just as repressive. As a consequence of the 1870 Education Act, for example, the infamous 'Welsh not' was born. This referred to a sign which would be hung around the neck of any child heard speaking the language at schools in Wales. That child could pass it on to another who used Welsh and the person bearing the 'Welsh not' at the end of the day would be beaten. Welsh Today, in England (as opposed to Great Britain), the question of language rights hardly dominates the political agenda. Approximately150 miles to the west of London, however, the situation is quite different. In parts of Wales - mainly the north and west: the 'Fro Gymraeg'- the question of language rights is very much alive and kicking. There, English is not chosen by many as the first language of communication. In Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion and Gwynedd, the majority use Welsh. Undoubtedly today, Welsh is currently enjoying a modest revival in its fortunes. According to the 2001 census, 21% of people in Wales (approximately 500,000) are now able to speak it, while the proportion of people under the age of 35 able to use the language has risen to 26%, outnumbering those fluent in Welsh over the age of 65. Furthermore, it is the only one of the four surviving Celtic languages which is currently experiencing a growth in the number of its speakers. Gaelic, Irish and Breton are in a slow decline and, despite the existence of the Cornish Language Society, boosted by a recent £80,000 government grant, only around 300 people claim to be able to speak that tongue, some of these being based in university language institutions in London. The other Celtic language, Manx, officially passed away in 1974 with the death of its only remaining speaker. On one level, statistics would appear to be quite promising for Welsh language supporters. Indeed, this is the first time the number of Welsh speakers has actually risen since records began with the first census back in 1891. Then, over 50% of people in Wales spoke the language. However, Welsh has witnessed a notable and steady decline since that time and in 1911 became a minority language in Wales for the first time. By the 1960s, only 18% of people in the country were able to speak it - a figure which, according to Gwyn Williams, represented a "crisis point" in the history of the language (G Williams When was Wales? London 1985, p245). Given the relative success of the protests and campaigns over the question in the last decades of the 20th century, it is perhaps a little surprising that the recent increase in Welsh speakers has not been more substantial. This is particularly so with the Welsh language structures now existing in, for example, education and administration and the support that such structures are receiving by a rather comprehensive professional training and supply apparatus. Yet the existence of organisations campaigning for rights associated with the language, most notably Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg (Welsh Language Society) and the more recently established Cymuned (Community), are testament to the fact that the status of the language remains somewhat fragile and its future uncertain. As the oldest language in Britain and one of the oldest languages in Europe, Welsh in the 21st century finds itself in a bit of a dilemma. As Geraint Jenkins and Mari Williams have pointed out, while the 1993 Welsh Language Act may have made the language a little more "institutionally" robust, particularly with the establishment of Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg (Welsh Language Board) and its obligation to make local authorities in Wales produce all official documents in Welsh as well as English, the act "failed to confer upon Welsh equality with English" (G Jenkins, M Williams [eds] The Welsh language in the 20th century Cardiff 2000, p23). Plaid Cymru, in its 2004 European manifesto, claims that the unequal status of the Welsh language has deprived local communities of important European funding and consequently hampered financial projects to sustain Welsh (and other lesser used languages) within the EU. Running parallel to this, but more important, is the language's relative decline in community use. Whilst it may now figure quite prominently in education, law and local government - ie, in state and commercial use - including in Anglophone towns and cities of south-east Wales, where the ability to speak Welsh now carries greater economic prestige than ever before, its reduction in community use calls into question its long-term survival - and indeed the impact of official sponsorship in being able to influence significantly the choice of language spoken. The reduction in spontaneous use of Welsh places its future on a fragile basis. As Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg points out, "Only a frighteningly low three percent of the children of Wales are being brought up in homes where both parents are Welsh-speaking." Cymuned states on its website that rural and traditional "Cymraeg-speaking communities are beset by economic hardship and this has led to migration from rural to urban areas". The decline of the language can be explained by the accumulation of various historical, social and political factors which stretch over a number of centuries. All of which involved degrees of coercion. Undoubtedly, kingdom-building and feudal expansion brought devastating attacks on Welsh and Welsh speakers. The defeat of the kingdoms of Wales by Edward I and his 1282-83 'annexation' statute, for example, saw the subjugation of the country's inhabitants, bringing with it the stigmatisation of Welsh. Prior to this, it was the language spoken by most and enjoyed an equal status with English and French. More repressive legislation arrived a few centuries later with the passing of the 1536 and 1542 Acts of Union. This legislation continued the incorporation of Wales into an English polity and legalised the English language as the official language of business and administration in Wales. According to Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg, "No monolingual Welsh speaker was able to hold official office in Wales, and, although the language was not banned, it lost its status, and [the passing of the acts] brought with it centuries of steady linguistic decline" (www.bwrdd-yr-iaith.org.uk). Indeed, the language would not be used as an official language again until after the passing of the 1942 Welsh Courts Act some 400 years later. However, as was the case with other minority languages, it was the industrial revolution, capitalist expansion and the drive towards a centralised British state within the fast-growing British empire which qualitatively increased the vulnerability of the Welsh language. Wales (predominately south Wales) was transformed into one of the world's most important coal-producing areas and thus became a major sector of Britain's imperial economy. For the aspirant bourgeoisie of Wales, greedy for their share of the profit from coal, the adoption of the English language was seen as an essential prerequisite in the drive to power and wealth. For middle class people and many workers too there was a recognition that English was the key to social advancement. All the best jobs in commerce, government and law required it. Added to this was the fact that Welsh was often seen as the language associated with the puritanism of the non-conformist chapel and its strict moral code on sexual behaviour and drink, so it is perhaps not surprising that the language was increasingly sidelined. This was further compounded by the net immigration into Wales by the 1890s. Although a minority of the Spanish, Italians, Africans and English migrants learnt to speak Welsh, in industrial areas the adopted language of political struggle was most certainly English. As Gwyn Williams notes, at one 'Fed' meeting in the Rhondda ""¦the chairman asked: 'Is there anyone here who wants the resolution in Welsh?' The reply: 'Why? Everyone here understands English'" (G Williams When was Wales? London 1985, p245). Indeed, while there were many militant areas in south Wales which remained thoroughly Welsh-speaking, "in many places and at many times in the coalfield, the Welsh language was that of conservatism and accommodation "¦ English "¦ was the language of militancy, self-assertion and a rejection of servility" (ibid p248). People chose to use it, as it provided a practical benefit. It was a language which could unite nationalities in a common struggle against a common enemy. Conversely, particularly during the early part of the 19th century, but during other periods of class struggle and militant action too, the British ruling class often (and quite correctly) associated the Welsh language with conspiratorial uprisings against its authority. Of significant note were, for example, the Merthyr uprising of 1831 and, in 1839, under Chartist leadership, the fight for a 'Silurian Republic' by colliers and iron workers in Newport. Both of which were organised in the medium of Welsh. Two royal commissions were initiated by the government to look into the confrontations. The first, in 1844, concluded that the Welsh language was a factor in the 'degeneracy' of the Welsh, while the infamous 1847 commission, now known as Brad y Llyfrau Gleison (treachery of the blue books) also concluded that the language acted as a "moral and economic barrier" to progress in Wales. And, of course, as has already been mentioned, the 1870 Education Act and the development of the 'Welsh not' further continued the stigmatisation of Welsh and its speakers. In the first part of the 20th century, the fight for Welsh language rights was often regarded as a secondary question. Mass militant action was accompanied by a high level of political radicalisation in a world dominated by the Russian Revolution and class politics generally. Nationalist demands gained little support and it is telling how irrelevant and, indeed, hostile Plaid Cymru was to the aspirations of most workers in Wales when that party was formed in 1925. The call by its founder, Saunders Lewis, for the annihilation of the English language and the de-industrialisation of south Wales failed to make any impact with the Welsh working class specifically and the majority of the population in Wales generally. Moreover, attempts to fight for Welsh language rights were undertaken by single-issue campaigns operating on reactionary platforms. The Urdd Gobaith Cymru (Welsh League of Youth), for example, smothered itself in conservatism and religion and required all its members to be faithful "to Wales, to fellow man and to christ" (G Jenkins, M Williams The Welsh language in the 20th century Cardiff 2000, p189). It was not until the 1970s that Plaid Cymru and Welsh language campaigns began to have a real and significant influence in Welsh politics generally. With the sustained post-war economic boom grinding to a stop, job losses and closures were the order of the day. Nationalism blamed the centralised British state, not capitalism. Plaid's call for Welsh independence began to attract a significant protest vote, taking advantage of disillusion with the failing politics of the Labour Party. Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, founded in 1962, also became increasingly prevalent in Welsh language rights campaigns. The 1993 Welsh Language Act, for all its shortcomings, and a separate Welsh language channel, S4C, are two examples which bear some testament to such campaigning. Communists and Welsh So how do communists view the question of Welsh language rights today? Generally speaking, as mentioned earlier, communists view the achievement of one world language as a positive goal, since a multiplicity of languages is a barrier to communication. For us though, the fight for internationalism is based on democratic struggle and, within that, the recognition of cultural (and thus language) rights, not the removal of them. The English language, for example, may be approaching or indeed is already recognised by many as the international language, but it has achieved that status through a combination of spontaneity and repression, backed up by a divisive and chauvinistic ideology, frequently riding roughshod over the cultural rights of others. It is in the context of economic deprivation that the recent decline of Welsh as a community language - ie, as a living, 'natural' language, spontaneously spoken by individuals within a community - needs to be addressed. As pointed out earlier, the adoption of English in Wales had two sides: on the one hand, it was forcibly imposed from above, but, on the other hand, the process was largely voluntary and organic on the part of the majority of the Welsh. The future security of the language then ultimately depends upon the language remaining 'real' and 'living' rather than artificially and bureaucratically stimulated. The fact that, as Jenkins and Williams write, its own speakers "no longer regard it as a stumbling block or an incubus" perhaps bodes well for its survival (ibid p23). It would certainly be foolish to adhere to any arguments about its immediate demise. Although it is too early to tell, the increase in the number of bilingual speakers in urban areas may well yet compensate for the decline in the language in traditional heartlands. Our approach must therefore begin and end with the concrete needs and aspirations of those who speak Welsh today in the here and now. Indeed, precisely because there is a strong argument which suggests that the demise in community Welsh is due to the vagaries of the housing and job market - ie, to the ups and downs of the economy - we have to ensure we provide answers to the problems that that inevitably brings. Should we agree with this premise, then there is a strong argument in favour of positively and actively supporting Welsh language usage, given the enormous preponderance and weight of English. Having said that, we must also ensure that those who do not speak the language will not be obliged to do so. Furthermore, as capitalism can rip the heart out of a community through factory closures, redundancies and mass unemployment, communists also appreciate that it can destroy local cultures and thus language. It is certainly true that the use of the Welsh language "in every area of life is as much an expression of "¦ freedom as is the right to a home or work within the community" (Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg, Maniffesto 1992). If the economic market impacts negatively on the right to use Welsh, then we, as democrats, have a duty to respond and counteract that. As such then, while Wales may now already officially embrace public bilingualism, the contradictions of the Welsh Language Act of 2003, which leave the language on an uneven keel with English, still need to be addressed. Since Welsh-speaking individuals are not entitled, where the trial of his or her case is heard in Welsh, to have the case heard before a Welsh-speaking jury whenever possible, and private bodies are not obliged to provide facilities for the Welsh language, in that sense Welsh is still not recognised as an official language in its home country. That needs to be reversed. That is one of the many issues which Cymdeithas and Cymuned are campaigning around and precisely why communists too should take up the question. Their grievances may be just, but ultimately their answers do not provide correct solutions. If we fail to address problems with language rights and not give them the necessary attention, we leave the way open for others - not least those with a nationalist agenda - to set the political goals. As such, we would thus criticise the premise on which Cymuned, for example, bases its fight for Welsh language rights. The organisation notes that soaring house prices in many small Welsh communities in the 'Fro Gymraeg' have forced local, particularly young, Welsh speakers to urban areas, whilst an increase of non-Welsh-speaking, wealthier individuals, purchasing local properties, have left the language in such communities in a fragile state. At last year's European Social Forum in London a representative from Cymuned toyed with the idea of introducing restrictions on people entering and buying property in the 'Fro' as a response (see Weekly Worker October 21 2004). Cymuned's website elaborates: "We welcome the in-migration of individuals from non-Welsh backgrounds into Cymru who learn Cymraeg and contribute to cultural and social life: we believe that they add to the diversity of experiences that exist in Cymru. But we do not believe that an influx into our communities of individuals who refuse to respect the existence of a minority culture is conducive to social justice, multiculturalism or linguistic diversity" (www.cymuned.org). In keeping with its self-description as an "anti-colonisation movement", what Cymuned is not far off saying is 'Learn Welsh or keep out' - no matter how much it attempts to shroud this in talk of "social justice, multiculturalism or linguistic diversity". Cymuned's Datganiad y fro Gymraeg (Declaration of the Fro Gymraeg) states: "We oppose totally all forms of racism; we declare that all human beings are of equal worth and value, whatever their race and physical characteristics." However, the declaration's frequent talk of "colonisation" by English speakers and the "anti-colonisation acts" of those said to be resisting it is dangerous chauvinism disguised as a fight for Welsh language rights within local communities. From our perspective, the shortage of affordable housing is a social question, which needs to be tackled as part of a working class programme, not through language vetting to protect one particular section. We demand the social provision of cheap, quality housing for all. As has been stated earlier, the question of language rights needs to be addressed for other reasons too, not least its fight for rights around collective identity, democracy and political self-determination. It is no coincidence, for example, that Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg perceives that only "freedom for Wales" would guarantee the fortunes of the Welsh language. Like Plaid Cymru, the organisation places its politics within the nationalist sphere of the demand for Welsh independence and declares that "the Welsh language would lie at the heart of all activities in the [Welsh] assembly" (D Phillips The Welsh language in the 20th century Cardiff 2000, p489). The fact that radical sections of the community are attracted to Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg and thus to ideas which pursue politics of a nationalist trajectory, is a further reason for communists to actively intervene on the question. Demands Yet this has not been the case for the left in Wales generally. Respect in Wales, for example, agreed a position on Welsh self-determination and the Welsh language at its Wales meeting last year in preparation for the organisation's 2004 conference. However, its motion to conference was withdrawn, leaving the organisation without any formal position on either the Welsh language or the national question in Wales generally. The Socialist Workers Party publication, Wales, class struggle and socialism, speaks only in general terms about Welsh language rights (London 1999, pp42-46). The Morning Star's Communist Party of Britain (Wales) refers fleetingly to language rights on its website (www.welsh-communists.co.uk) and Forward Wales stops short of listing specific demands. Its website states that it will "defend the civil rights of all language communities. Understanding the value, importance, but threatened status, of the Welsh language, we support special measures throughout Wales and especially in vulnerable core areas to nurture the language and build sustainable communities on which it ultimately depends" (www.forwardwales.org). Given the common mistake of the left to downplay the importance of democratic issues, it is no surprise then that Plaid Cymru has a much more comprehensive position on the Welsh language question. Its 2004 European election manifesto details a number of demands on the issue, ranging from fighting for equal status of the language to its promotion in education. As a socialist and a communist, though, while I would recognise Plaid's demand for Welsh to be given equal status to English as legitimate, I would also point out that the party's ultimate political programme of a 'separate Wales in Europe' does not offer a path to social liberation for the Welsh working class. And that is a key point for communists. The struggle for democratic rights is intrinsic to the communist programme for working class power and socialism. The struggle for Welsh language rights needs to be linked to a political programme fighting for social progress generally. In this way working class partisans differentiate themselves from the nationalists. In particular, we need to counteract the poisonous anti-English sentiments often found within nationalism's more rightwing elements. The fight for Welsh language rights must start from the understanding that it is not an anti-English one. What we demand is equality. It would be wrong for communists to turn a blind eye on an issue which, today, in many parts of west and north Wales in particular, remains highly controversial, motivating large numbers onto the streets fighting for a basic democratic right. That fight needs to be taken seriously. We must draw up specific demands to answer legitimate grievances, as part of our programme for extreme democracy. It is with this in mind that I would propose the following: l fight for the Welsh language to have full equality with English; l fight for affordable housing in order to sustain all communities, including those that are Welsh-speaking, and thus allow the language to flourish or wither, according to the wishes of local inhabitants; l respect the right of all to speak or not speak a given language; l support campaigns for legal and private bodies to provide facilities for use of the Welsh language; l seek to win those campaigning for Welsh language rights to our programme of extreme democracy
Worker