language barrier neccessitates nationalism ?

areas with a common language may well be convenient organising areas, but there's no reason they wouldn't be federated together or that people couldn't move between them.

IFA currently has member federations which are organised by language not country, this doesn't stop member federations working together.

there are also existing countries that seem to work fine despite having multiple languages, like Switzerland.

It may be the opposite. Linguists recognise the fact that most human languages are incredibly similar to each other. The reason there are so many languages today is because there are so many nations and national barriers. In a communist society, there will be no more borders or nations and so it is likely that most languages and cultures that exist today will become extinct. Languages have always been a means for communicating in a society. As long as such a function is carried out by some medium, in the absence of any national barriers, why would there continue to be millions of languages and dialects as seen today? The fact remains that most borders and boundaries which separate people from each other between countries or within countries are accidental or completely arbitrary.

For reference:

Source

I'm afraid you're getting your cause and effect the wrong way round here, croy. You're positing 'language leads to nation'.

In fact, the drive for 'nation' wasn't based on language, but on the desire for markets without customs barriers, tolls, feudal laws, etc. The bourgeoisie wanted to clear away ancient ways of distributing goods, which prevented them freely transporting goods and making profits.

So, the idea of the 'nation' spread. Language was one excuse for 'nationality'.

The 'cause' was desire for wider (national) market and the 'effect' was language streamlining.

If you look at 'nations' like the French and Italians, when they were set up (1789 and 1870) the majority of the population in each country spoke a different language from 'French' or 'Italian'. It's basically the same all over the world: think of many African 'nations'.

'language barrier neccessitates nationalism?'

It's more accurate to think 'nationalism neccessitates language barriers'.

eg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_French

We're talking economics, not culture, when we speak of 'nations'. Change the economy, and the 'national' and language 'problems' disappear. In the past, many people spoke several languages because of mixed cultures happily living side-by-side.

[edit]
map of Italian dialects, for comparison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Languages_spoken_in_Italy_Bis.svg

[end edit]

I don't really agree with that. It seems to me the modern national boundries have in fact decreased the amount of languages there is rather than increase them. In Latin America, for example, thousands of indigenous languages are dying out as Spanish/Portugues and a few others become become completely dominant.

Also the fact languages are quite similar doesn't mean they will easily morph into one dialect. English and Chinese are a long way off becoming one language. I'd say it's not even desirable to have a single language, I mean yh it would be useful if everyone could communicate but we could do that by having a shared second language. Losing all languages bar one would be a terrible loss to human culture and diversity.

I think i agree with Radicalgraffiti's post.

@ LBird I go along with that by and large, however it isn't always the case, especially for people who have identified themselves along lines of language, take for instance Bangladesh.
I go along with the historical formula of nation state then linguistic and cultural homogenisation (not that I support it!) but people often have grouped on lines of language as opposed to territory. In a way, I find a little encouragement with the idea of finding solutions based around territorial proximity - and part of those solutions may be to find a common language - as opposed to clubbing together solely because of language.

Yeah, although the original impulse for 'nation-building' was economic, once some nations existed and proved to be economically (and thus militarily) more advanced, others then proceeded to 'build nations' for defensive reasons against other existing nation-states. I'm sure Bangladesh (ex-East Pakistan) fits this pattern, with its civil war against West Pakistan (now just Pakistan) and its relationship with the nation-state of India, which helped defined 'Bangladesh', not language.

The nation-state of Bangladesh has 38 languages, apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Bangladesh

But this model still argues against the basis of croy's OP question:

'language barrier neccessitates nationalism?'

But I'd modify my earlier answer now, given your comment, to:

It's more accurate to think 'nationalism (economic and state) neccessitates language barriers'.

[edit]

Some evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylheti_language

[end edit]

Of course, as you say, none of us support this 'nation-building' process. We're internationalists and support cultural diversity.

I agree with croydonian when he writes that post revolution it may be that there could be more languages. I would see this as an expression of human creative energies expanding and diversifying. It would not be a problem as it would only be meeting a need to communicate in new forms.

The reason why the multiplicity of languages will not voluntarily wither and disappear is that it forms part of human cultural identity, and we tend to cherish those parts of our culture in which we find value and pleasure. Language is shaped by the needs of those who use it. For example, Inuit language with its numerous names to differentiate snow is of purely academic interest to a person living in the tropics. Further, to lose general access to historical literature, as a result of the extinction of certain languages, would be a catastrophe. (I’m assuming here that some people would still study ‘dead languages’.)

I think LBird is correct, that when we talk of nation states we are talking of the history of economics. One consequence of a free communist society, with the disappearance of ‘the state’, would be the end of the historic injustice to cultural groupings such as the Kurds, Basques, Yoruba, etc. This would surely lead to an explosion of creative activity.

I think LBrid has made some very good points, although I think to say that they didn't speak the same language is going a little bit far as these were dialects with a similar base that were for the most part mutually intelligible. The role of language in creating nations is very important, something needs to unify people and language can be a very important force, empires have traditionally used their own language to administer, leading to an increasing need to know the language the further you rise in society.

In terms of practical post-revolution organisation in areas where multiple languges were spoken then multiple languages would need to be used, there's no need to divide regions up and it isn't always possible or desirable. (for example after the first world war Turkey deported greek sepaking turks to Greece and greece did the same with turksih speaking greeks, we wouldn't do anything like that so we'd need to accept that two languages were spoken.)

Some people would disagree with you here, jef!

http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue345/cc_Twain_discn.html

more:

http://not-the-aps.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=print&thread=257

Just on a historical point this isn't exactly true. In the 'population exchange' nationality was defined according to religion. Many of the 'Greeks' expelled from Turkey, including whole communities, were actually Turkish speakers, there were 50,000 Armenians, and many others spoke a dialect of greek (Pontic) that wasn't mutually intelligible with modern Greek. Without actually researching the figures considering that the Treaty of Lausanne also covered those who had already fled during the war, it wouldn't surprise me if we found that the majority of those expelled were non Greek speakers.

Similarly with those expelled from Greece the majority of the 'Turks' (read Muslims) expelled from Greece were certainly ethnic Greeks and Greek speakers, but also included Gypsies, Bulgarians, Albanians, and 'Romanians'.

Devrim

Sorry croydonian, I did not mean to mislead you regarding my opinion on people’s attachment to their culture/language. Post revolution, people will be free to engage in ‘cultural associations’ without fear of persecution, and will I think, reciprocate by being more open to other languages, traditions etc. We are protective of the things we value, though we also like to share and exchange ‘gifts’.

The French state repressed the hell out of anyone speaking other languages apart from French through schools. And it worked. Ditto Spanish state, British state in Wales and Scotand. These things came after the state was established but were vital to its way of seeing itself, particularly after the rise of the new nationalism post French revolution. Why is Norwegian 2 languages and Scots not a recognised one when Scots is as different from English as Norwegian is from Danish or Swedish? If we had the wierd linguistic politics of Spain here, Scouse, Geordie, Yorkshire and West Country would all be languages rather than dialects complete with relevant bureaucracy, BBC programming and translation services.

This is also a question that would only get asked on an English-speaking forum. In much of the world it is normal for people to speak several languages where they live.

jef costello:

Not true - eg French Catalan is virtually the same as Spanish Catalan, but neither are intelligible to mainstream French or mainstream Spanish (Castilliano). What martinh said is true:

But it should be pointed out that one of the reasons Mitterand got elected in 1981was that he promised, and kept to his promise, that local languages (eg Catalan, Provencal, Occitan) could be taught in local schools - a recuperation of the (easily recuperable) movement against central State control. So what Chomsky said:

should really read

Ho ho.

Each language expresses different things - there are expressions and words in French, that have no precise equivalent in English. If there is ever a revolutionary abolition of nations and the development of a free movement and unfettered communication of people across the world, then I imagine after a few generations, people will possibly develop a global language incorporating all the different nuances of expression from all the various languages, although, as with our own mother tongue, there will always be new words and expressions we will learn or which will be invented, which will partly stem from differences in local development and local communities.

At the moment, however, languages are being destroyed every year - ie languages spoken by few people, usually tribes, that have expressions, words and above all, a knowledge of the world expressed through these langugaes which will be different in some ways from the knowledge expressed by the more common languages; this knowledge is being wiped out. Apparently, most of the world's seven thousand languages will no longer be spoken by the end of this century, assuming capitalism continues and the world along with it (if not the latter, then we can replace "most" with "all"). See this sickeningly complacent article by a psychologist:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cultural-animal/200811/languages-are-vanishing-so-what

I once linked the development of the disappearance of languages to the development of the commodity form - in part stemming from English being the dominant language because of the US's (and in the past, Britain's) dominant position in the world market - after a Comment is Free article on language disappearance in The Guardian. There was nothing aggressive - no flaming, racism etc. - in what I said, not even an attack on the article; and yet within a couple of hours it was taken off by the goderator, saying that it didn't conform to the CIF standards, etc. Is anyone else here as astonished by such sensitivity about this question that it could lead to censorship as I was?

Lbird wrote

Fair comment. However, my reading of the situation is that the foisting of the Urdu language on the Bangladeshi people - as well as other factors, such as broader Pakistani cultural imperialism- played a vital role in uniting them against the former East Pakistan, part of that struggle finding strength in the Bengali language. (And by the way, there's plenty other lingos other than Urdu spoke in Pakistan.) Much what you have said - which I agree with - is angled post-nation state; your example of the Sylhet language being stamped out being a prime example.
regards

This is true, but it essentially is a corollary of and not opposed to what I said. The same phenomenon of indigenous and local languages and dialects dying out is being seen in several places in the world. This points to the possibility that this might be because as capitalism is breaking down the old cultural barriers, many indigenous and local languages are becoming irrelevant. However, capitalism still needs many national barriers to facilitate the economic exploitation, competition and imperialist ambitions of the national bourgeoisies. This is the reason why under capitalism, all languages have not been unified as of now. However, when all national barriers have been broken down, a more expanded form of vanishing languages will be seen.

I agree that English and Chinese are quite different currently, as are many languages belonging to different language families. Also, it would be a terrible loss to human culture and diversity to lose all languages, but this is something a bourgeois nationalist would be sentimental about.

I think it would be cool and potentially help an international federation of communes if there was a single language in which all humanity could communicate alongside their own languages. It doesn't have to be one with a nationalist heritage but a made up one like Esperanto. Isn't there a traditional link between Esperanto and anarchism? I am sure I read somewhere that some anarchists used to learn it as a potential way of overcoming nationalism. It would be a great way to share new technology and ideas as much as organising international projects. It doesn't mean that the main local language would disappear.

Workingclass wrote:

In what sense are the local languages becoming ‘irrelevant’ to the people who are being coerced into a homogenous language? I’ve heard of no peoples who abandoned their native tongue through free choice. Perhaps there are some?

There may be bourgeois nationalists who are sentimental about the loss of human culture and diversity, no doubt as the necessary price of progress. I feel we can discount these as crocodile tears - ‘sheep are more profitable than people’, was the sentiment when clearing the Scottish highlands.

Some would disagree with me I'm sure. I don't think I expressed myself at all well either.
It depends a lot on who is speaking, for example I can generally understand glaswegians and geordies, but I can't understand very strong patois, whereas the average american TV viewer needs subtitles for all three. (I think I might be treading on my own point a little here actually). I don't consider them different languages, even though they have different vocabularies and to a greater or lesser extent some different grammatical elements. I'm not so up on the basque or catalan dialects (although I think they were spoken by relatively few, I don't know if anyone really counted) but someone from Lille, or Normandy, or even Toulouse could have made himself understood in Paris without too much more difficulty than someone from Glasgow might find in Washington. When I was talking about the dialects I was talking about the majority of them (basically the varieties of northern french and occitan). Although I suppose I am talking about more advanced speakers and relying a bit on receptive listeners
The French State and the Academie Francaise had a vested interest in homogenising French culture and language was a way to do that. Although speaking one of the many occitan dialects wouldn't cut you off from communication with someone speaking parisian french, if you only spoke parisian french you probably wouldn't really be able to enjoy a lot of occitan culture (and vice versa). Also the elitist element that necessarily makes up an organisation like the academie francaise likes to make itself more important and it's mission grander so you can't particularly trust them. Much like the Renaissance invented the Dark Ages to make themselves sound more clever.
I think the idea that languages foster divisions is a bit like the idea of the Tower of Babel, they can be used as part of a nationalistic project (and have been done so repeatedly) but they tend to reflect communities rather than create them (although there is some interdependence). I think the story of the tower of babel has the same concept behind it as the prohibitions on translation of religious books. If you maintain one language it is easier to maintain a more centralised control and keep more unity. Islam managed this more succesfully than Judaism and especially Christianity (even though now everyday speech in the arab-speaking world is mutually unintelligble from what I have been told).
Devrim, it appears I have misremembered quite badly the situation in Turkey and Greece, thanks for setting that straight.

I'm not very knowledgeable about this but I've met catalan speakers who have told me that catalans and castilians can understand each other with a bit of effort. Not to the extent that they could read poems in the other language say, but to the point where they could have an everyday conversation. When I've seen Catalan it has looked pretty similar to spanish although I can make a stab at reading spanish when I don't actually know it so that might just be because I have a bit of a background in languages

Yeah, unfortunately jef, I still disagree with what you're saying, even though you're attempting to 'express yourself' a little better.

In the context of thecroydonian's OP question:

...I think we should clearly state that 'No! it ain't so'

Although you hedge your central statement with caveats that languages can be used to foster divisions and there is some interdependence, in the context of the modern world of nation-states, which is what croy is really asking about, it is untrue to maintain that 'languages reflect communities rather than create them'.

Given just the evidence presented on this thread, I think it can justifiably be said, in direct contrast to your position, that nowadays 'languages create [national] communities rather than reflect them'.

This inverts the premise of croy's reasonable question, and allows us to reassure croy that 'language is not the barrier' but that 'nationalism' is.

I suspect that the difference between us is that I'm a historian, and so don't look at issues like 'language' in an ahistoric void, because what you maintain can be correct in some socio-historical contexts: that is, 'language reflects communities'.

Just not in this context of croy's question.

I don't think that you did misremember. As you said the Greek and Turkish nationals were expelled. That is what happened. I would imagine that how it happened is something that many people here don't know either.

The Treaty covering the population exchange was signed before the Republic of Turkey officially came into existence. The Ottoman Empire, which preceded it, was not a 'national state' in the same way that we understand them today. So, how did they decide who was a Turk and who was a Greek? On religious grounds of course.

Now, if you look at some of the mixed communities of Greeks, and Turks, read Christians and Muslims on the Mediterranean coast, where inter-marriage was common, and women generally converted to the religion of their husbands, it would be quite common for a woman to be born a 'Greek', become a 'Turk' at marriage, and have 'Turkish' children, and for some of the girls to later become 'Greeks' again.

Spoken Arabic would almost certainly be classified as a family of different languages if it were not for various political and cultural reasons. Personally, I find it very difficult to understand anybody from West of the Nile delta, and to me Moroccans might as well be talking Chinese. Of course people with a good education can fall back to classical or some form of Modern standard.

So effectively what you have is something similar to what now exists in Southern Europe, a number of languages descended from an original source. Whilst if you look at the opposite ends of that world, the languages appear to be completely different, they are linked by a chain in which Algerians can understand Moroccans... I imagine that people living near the Spanish Portuguese boarder can understand people on the other side.

On top of that you also have people writing in modern standard, which would be the equivalent of a modernized version of Latin, and people becoming increasingly familiar with Egyptian Arabic, due to the TV and cinema.

Devrim

fair enough

The caveats as you call them are because not everything is black and white, also because just because something can be used to do something doesn't necessarily mean that it is. I'm not convinced that there is the evidence to say that languages create national communities nowadays, Could you give me an example please?

In the UK a large amount of state support has been given to the welsh language for reasons I don't really understand (and haven't particularly looked into) besides placating a marginalised wlesh independence movement (by allowing a project likely to create more demands in the future) I can't see why it was done, especially from the point of view of those running the major part of the country. Actually this is an entirely seperate question, it might need a new thread.

I'm astonished about this sensitivity - is the observation that the development of the commodity form coincides with the decline in linguistic wealth seen as a form of 'hate speech'? Is the questioning of the commodity form seen as a challenge too far for the liberal left... does it make them uncomfortable in some way?

No, I agree with you, jef, which is why I thought I made it plain that your thesis is correct, in some socio-historical circumstances, just not the one that croy's question was aimed at: that is, nation-states, capitalism and the modern world.

I'm a bit non-plussed at this question, jef. I thought that numerous posters on this thread, including me, had provided examples: France, Italy, Bangladesh used a particular language to create imaginary 'national communities', often a language that was actually a minority language before the economic and defence demands of nation-building.

Previously, the land areas covered now by most modern nation-states contained many languages and dialects, as the states were often multi-national and multi-lingual states, like the Ottoman Empire, which Dev wrote about. We could also look at the Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires.

Many of the problems of the 1919 Versailles Treaty were caused by US President Wilson's erroneous assumptions that 'nation-states' could be created out of the patchwork of multi-lingual middle-European states. As has been pointed out, many communities were multi-lingual, and the very idea of only speaking one (national) language would have appeared inconceivable to many people. The 'French' nation speaking 'French' seems so obvious now that it's difficult to believe that it is a very modern ideological assumption, that is, a 'nation' speaking only its 'national' language. It has no basis is historical reality: bourgeois ideology, I'm afraid.

Thanks for the feedback, croy. I'm trying to help you short-circuit the bourgeois bullshit about 'nations' being 'organic communities' based on culture, like 'language'. They are entirely artificial modern creations, in reality based upon the destruction of cultures, as many in this thread have shown, in pursuit of profit and power for the rich.

Although, as you've guessed, that's not what they say...

English could easily be used for that purpose, seeing as it is the most commonly used trade language, even though it is not the most common native language. "Esperanto" was constructed to be easy for Europeans to learn, but I do not think that translates into ease of use for people who started from languages outside the Romance.

Don't know if anyone spotted this last year? Connected to this group.

You talked about being a historian and I assumed that these examples were historical rather than contemporary.
Especially as in France there is state support for forms of minority languages. I don't know a huge amount about Bangladesh or the use of language there though.
I'm interested in whether or not empires do need to impose a language or not. I'm not sure how the A-H did it but I believe that the Ottomans did expect it to be used for administration. As all those empires were largely undone (among other things) by national projects it's an interesting line of thought.

Although Chinese is often refereed to as a language, Chinese people will often mention different languages within china, which seem to be mutually unintelligible, but almost everyone learns mandarin as well as their local language, and the Chinese writing system can mostly be read by people speaking different Chinese languages