Too often we have framed the language situation in terms of what it is not. What has been lost. Taken away. How few speakers. Perhaps that's an understandable view, as it is too easy to look back and recall what used to be. But as Treuer points out, it's also an established discourse grounded in negative definitions. We define Native language in terms of what it is not, rather than what it is. This would be bad enough were it restricted to conceptualizations of language status, but we also see this view extended to thinking about language revitalization. We hear revitalization programs described in terms of what they don't do or what they fail to accomplish. Perhaps is just a glass half empty vs. half full issue. Treuer reminds us to celebrate the water rather than worrying about how much is in the glass.
Grant money is predicated on doing work before the opportunity is lost. This same perspective encourages worry, and hence contributions, from the wider public. So the discourse is focused on the negative aspects simply because it’s an effective way to get funding. Same for the environmental movement. John Muir’s writing on the environment and the wild was mostly positive, but this didn’t gain many converts. When he started to complain about the loss of Yosemite, suddenly he had many more supporters. People are afraid of loss whether it happens to them or not, but people don’t care about gain unless it’s personal. This is unfortunate, but it seems to be pretty basic in American society and presumably elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteBut now we increasingly see the negative perspective creeping into revitalization and maintenance efforts. I was distressed to see the headline Native Language App Gets Cool Reception in response to a new smart phone app. While it's good to be critical, the negative "what's missing" point of view is becoming increasingly entrenched. In such contexts we stop talking about loss and instead focus on what is lacking. In focusing too much on what isn't we may loose cite of what is.
Delete