"Analyse the relationship between language, literacy and the growth of nationalism."

“Analyse the relationship between language, literacy and the growth of nationalism.”

The idea of nationalism as a movement is considered to be a fairly modern phenomenon, in that it is not something that is inherent within us but something which has been created over time.

When one considers the idea of nationality, the issue of language almost immediately comes to mind. Surely a population with a common language should be considered a nation, alongside other cultural factors as well of course. However, the subject of language quickly becomes much more complex than this. When considering it, one must remember to distinguish between a language and a dialect, for example, or the literary version and the spoken version of a language. All of this makes the links between language and the concept of nationalism seem much more vague than first assumed.

The differentiation between the literary and the spoken languages, for example, in Czechoslovakia, leads us to the question of literacy and the significance of its role in the growth of nationalism. Where language can often be more closely associated with the idea of national identity, rather than nationalism itself, literacy is a social aspect which perhaps accelerates the development of nationalism as a movement. I plan to examine these links and their significance in the formation of nationalism.

Throughout history, language has always been a factor in nationalist feelings though perhaps more so in some cases than others. Alter cites the American political scientist Karl W. Deutsch, whose idea of a “people” is “a body of individuals who can communicate quickly and effectively with each other over long distances and about a variety of themes and matters.” (Alter, 1989, 8). Of course, one must ask the question of whether a “people” can really be considered the same as a “nation” and clearly the answer would be no. I believe that to be considered a “a people” is merely to acknowledge ones national consciousness, and this can be argued as a stage towards nationalism. Alter also cites Deutch’s idea of a nation which, for him, is “a people in possession of a state.” So there is obviously another level to examine here. In the case of Ireland in the nineteenth century, the gaelic language was merely a background cultural factor and although it cannot be denied that its role was significant, it could not have been considered the driving factor behind the necessity for a separate Irish nation. In contrast to this, if we turn to the case of Czechoslovakia in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the issue of language became central to the idea of nationalism, according to Sayer. He describes the “reborn nation” as a “linguistic community above all” and the Czech language became the place where that “hibernating identity” lay. The fact that he uses the words “hibernating identity” suggests that the language represented more than just a method of communication, rather the resurrection of it was like a collective rejection by the “simple rural people” of the oppression of their culture and national identity for so many years.

This is a preview of the whole essay

In looking to Eastern Europe, language was certainly, as Alter argues, “a more powerful medium of division and separation” (Alter, 1989, 12). Here, Alter considers the destructive consequences of more than one language being spoken within an Empire, what he refers to as “multinational dynastic polities”, for example the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires. (Alter, 1989, 12). Hobsbawm looks at the possible beginning of this conflict between those who spoke different languages by referring to the Government censuses after 1873. Hobsbawm believes that these censuses, for the first time “forced everyone to choose not only a nationality, but a linguistic nationality”. (Hobsbawm, 1992, 100) However, he also argues that “nobody was satisfied with this equation of language and nationality” due to the fact that, as I have already mentioned, the issue of language has always been so complex. Whether or not we agree with Hobsbawm, his point is certainly valid in Eastern Europe at this time, language was a complicated question with Governments having to differentiate between “Muttersprache” and “the family tongue” for example. (Hobsbawm, 1992, 99-100) Despite these complications, I feel it is clear that in this part of Europe language played a crucial role in national sentiments and was certainly a stepping stone towards nationalism itself.

In agreement with the significance of the role played by language in the growth of nationalism is John Breuilly, cited by Smith. Breuilly would argue here that the American Revolution cannot be granted the status of nationalism as the thirteen states did not have a common cultural identity, e.g. language, that would differentiate them from the British. Language is certainly a uniting factor among people and this supports the theory put forward by Sugar that “men need and overriding group loyalty” and of course, particularly in Eastern Europe, religion used to provide this before it gradually lost this role due to the Reformation among other factors. Therefore language became the “common denominator” so to speak. Of course, Sugar also differentiates between this and Nationalism by saying that language is something natural whereas nationalism is “acquired”.

This brings us to the question of literacy and to what extent it affects what has been discussed thus far. It seems that where language existed as a factor in national identity, literacy was necessary to further develop this aspect into something active, that is, into a movement of nationalism as opposed to the passive national consciousness that could be argued as being inherent in us as human beings. A.D. Smith cites Michael Mann who offered a “far more nuanced thesis” about the development of nationalism in Europe during the seventeenth century, suggesting that “the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation had mobilised a higher degree of ‘intensive power’ by encouraging networks of elite literacy”. (Smith, 2001). He continues by suggesting that this was followed in around 1700 “by a widening of discursive literacy by commercial expansion and state militarism”. Therefore, as the masses gradually became educated and subsequently, more politically aware, the growth of nationalism thus increased rapidly. Once again, if we look to the example of Ireland in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the significance of these developments is clearly evident. Those individuals who wanted to encourage nationalism throughout the whole country knew that the key to this was the politicisation of the masses. This was achieved by introducing various methods to increase literacy among the population, for example, reading rooms where ordinary people could read the literature of Irish nationalists. Christine Kinealy describes Daniel O’Connell as “the most dynamic leader of the nineteenth century as he educated the masses”, giving them a common goal to look towards.

Another argument for the importance of developments of the nineteenth century comes from Sugar who links the spread of nationalism with the “Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment”. He suggests that these “transformed societies and their values enough to weaken the hold of previous ideologies on the masses of the people and demanded the emergence of new ones” therefore, literacy was taking hold at a time when people where open to new ideas and this links also with Sugar’s aforementioned theory of man’s need to have a group loyalty. So literacy gave nationalism a solid footing at this time as people turned away from the groups they had previously associated themselves with, mainly religious ones, and looked to nationalism as something which satisfied their newfound literary enlightenment.

Separately, both language and literacy have had a strong bearing on the development of nationalism. However, before concluding, one must consider whether they had much of an impact when combined. I would suggest that they certainly did as Hobsbawm points out that the difference between the spoken language and written language is crucial when trying to determine the “national language”, so to speak. (Hobsbawm, 1992, 55). Sayer also highlights this aspect of both language and literacy, stating that, “to this day written and spoken Czech differ considerably” and that perhaps written Czech could no longer be considered as Czech, but more as “Slavonic”. Is it possible that this fact could have diluted the strength of Czech nationalism? On the other hand, Rees refers to the attempted revival of the Gaelic language during the nineteenth century in Ireland and as it had a universal form, perhaps it was a more uniting example with regards to Nationalism. (Rees, 1998, 73-75) I feel that both of these examples show the dual nature of this combination of language and literacy, that it can either strengthen or potentially weaken the development of nationalism.

In view of these facts and interpretations of various historians, in my opinion, it is obvious that both language and literacy have strong links with the growth of nationalism and I feel that literacy is something which takes the sentiments dormant in language to a further and deeper level with regards to the contribution to nationalism.

Bibliography

P.Alter, Nationalism, 1989, First Edition, Arnold.

E.J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780, 1992, Second Edition,

Cambridge University.

R. Rees, Ireland, 1905-1925, 1998, First Edition, Colourpoint.

D. Sayer, The Language of Nationality and the Nationality of Language:

Prague 1780-1920, Past and Present , 153, 1996.

A.D. Smith, Nationalism, 2001, First Edition, Polity.

P.F. Sugar, From Ethnicity to Nationalism and Back Again, (Taken from

Nationalism, edited by Palumbo and O’Shanahan).

P.F. Sugar. From Ethnicity to Nationalism and Back Again.

E.J. Hobsbawm. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780. Second Edition. Ch 2.

P. Alter. Nationalism. First Edition. Pg 8.

R. Rees. Ireland 1905 – 25, Volume 1. First Edition. Ch 3.

D. Sayer. The Language of Nationality and the Nationality of Language: Prague 1780-1920, Past and

Present, 153.

A.D. Smith. Nationalism. First Edition.

P. F. Sugar. From Ethnicity to Nationalism and Back Again (Taken from Nationalism, eds. Palumbo

and O’Shanahan).

Mann, 1993: 216-47.

P.F. Sugar. From Ethnicity to Nationalism and Back Again.

"Analyse the relationship between language, literacy and the growth of nationalism."

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays