Protecting Minority Languages; Preserving Minority Cultures

A minority culture of any given country is often found in a particular region of that country because all members of the cultural group are needed to outbid the present majority in the same area for the resources, thus establishing the area as their homeland and a symbol of the group’s cultural identity. This exhibition of localized minority cultural conglomeration can be seen across many multicultural nations because if members do pursue their own ideal way of life they would be “forced to try to execute their chosen life-styles in an alien culture” (Kymlicka 188) These minority cultures are thusly envious of the majority culture as they “get for free what aboriginal people have to pay for: secure cultural membership.” (Kymlicka 190) A primary characteristic of a culture is the language. Language has been identified as “the symbolic representation of a people, since it comprises their historical and cultural backgrounds, as well as their approach to life and their ways of living and thinking.” (Brown cited by Jiang) The importance of language therefore suggests the significance of preserving the cultural language to better protect the minority cultures.; Hhowever the insignificant number of users for the minority language oftentimes leads the majority culture to overlook the language, thereby undermining the culture’s security.
In Given Rawls’ theory on justice, unequal product contingencies or morally arbitrary conditions, including minority cultures, are not justified. Explain why minority culture is morally arbitrary. He also “claims that we should have the social conditions needed to intelligently decide for ourselves what is valuable in life.” (Kymlicka 164) These decisions however are made from examining “definite ideals and forms of life that have been developed and tested by innumerable individuals” which are observed through one’s culture: culture provides the context of choice to different ways of life. Within multicultural nations, language policies should be constructed in order to preserve minority languages by establishing it as a recognized or national language, but not the official language, and provide the education of the minority language to the minority group if desired.
Rawls would support such actions to protect the minority language because “the parties in the original position would wish to avoid at almost any cost the social conditions that undermine self-respect” where “the loss of cultural membership is one such condition.” (Kymlicka 166) Rawls argues that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are “reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage” (Rawls 53), and the departure from a list of primary goods, namely liberty, is only justified if it betters those most disadvantaged. Similarly, the importance of language as a primary good can be stressed through the same argument: language, which defines culture, provides the cultural structure that is recognized as a “context of choice” and “is a good in its capacity of providing meaningful options for us.” (Kymlicka 166) Freedom of liberty is required to support Rawls’ concept of self-respect, the precondition of carrying out a life plan; however the precondition of having a life plan is the context of choices as provided by language and the culture it represents, therefore, Rawls’ argument can be used to support protecting minority cultures and their language as a primary good.good
The underlying component of Rawls’ theory is the original position under the veil of ignorance, which contributes in determining the most justified scenarios to support social and economic inequalities. Under this initial scenario, “no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status, nor does any one know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or their special psychological propensities” (Rawls 11) His concept disregards morally irrelevant considerations, such as the relevant sizes of cultural groups, which will affect the principles meant to allocate the benefits of social cooperation. Hence, under the veil of ignorance, policies regarding languages can be made without the majority culture disregarding minority languages due to supposed social burdens the extra consideration may create. One’s cultural membership is largely a contingent result of birth. This is one crucial linkage between Rawls and Kymlicka.
Language is the resultant vehicle used to preserve cultures, and cultures are meant to be sustained because of the value that the membership to a culture provides to an individual. Kymlicka defines culture “in terms of the existence of a viable community of individuals with a shared heritage (language, history, etc.).” (Kymlicka 168) Culture is not constricted to the current norms, allowing it to transcend through generations which creates an inexplicable bind of a member to their own cultural community. This connection renders it impossible to “transplant people from one culture to another,” and effectively defies all efforts of assimilation. The cultural membership can then be observed to possess value in how it affects ones’ “sense of personal identity and capacity.” (Kymlicka 175) Not only does culture provide the context to choose one’s life path, but it also contributes to the notion of one’s capability of achieving the ends. Sociologists and world leaders have cited cultural structure “as a source of emotional security and personal strength,” (Kymlicka 176) supporting the idea that one’s cultural identification is also a source of motivation or reassurance of one’s ability. Claydon notes that “when the individual is stripped of her cultural heritage, her development becomes stunted.” (Claydon cited by Kymlicka 176) This could be explained by the needs and means that culture provides, yet without culture the members are left without direction. Because of this guidance, “human beings [are] very [reluctant to] give up their [cultural associations], even in the face of negative costs of membership.” (Svennson cited by Kymlicka 176) excellent discussion
The impact of culture comprises of one’s life: culture provides the context of choices for one’s path, defines one’s identity, and offers the strength and means of achieving one’s end. Humanity’s incessant search for identity and purpose in life can thusly be filled by culture, verifying the value of culture and the value of one’s cultural membership. Language, as a crucial characteristic of culture, also contributes to the value of one’s cultural membership. As Fishman writes, language is not simply “a neural medium for identify…but itself is a reference for loyalties and animosities, a marker of the societal goals, the large-scale, value-laden arenas of interaction that typify every speech community.” (Fishman cited by Kymlicka 175) The acknowledgement of one’s cultural language reinforces one’s identity, which makes protecting or nurturing the cultural language an action that simultaneously preserves the culture to which it belongs.
In view of the value of cultural membership and the inherent disadvantage that those of minority cultures face, there arises the need for governments to preserve the cultures. Language, as demonstrated concluded, is a core element of culture and is the most prominent component of any minority culture that can forthrightly be protected. Using language as a proxy for culture, a nation should impose policies to ensure the continued growth and usage of minority languages. The laws however, should not be from the perspective of internal restrictions because of the risk of restricting one’s autonomy. Instead, external protections can be justified if they promote equality in the social and economic realm under Rawls’ veil of ignorance. An example of one such government action that should be established is the recognition of the minority language(s). Recognizing the language provides external protection in its use of dealing with government agencies and using it as the language of instruction at schools. Kymlicka writes that “the notion of protecting the cultural context provides no grounds for denying them that opportunity [of learning in their minority language]” (Kymlicka 194), showing how the implementation of government recognition provides protection. At the original position, the legislation would better the least advantaged minority cultures by ensuring the existence of their community. The minority members are “not forced to try to execute their chosen life-styles in an alien culture” (Kymlicka 188) if their own language is sufficient in achieving their chosen lifestyles, removing the foreign language and culture barriers that unjustly create social and economic inequalities.
The more equal scenario can be observed in Sweden where the nation has formally declared and recognized five minority languages with the intention of protecting the cultural and historical heritages of the minority cultures. The cultures are maintained through the continued use of their language in daily activities such as education and business ordeals in the geographic locations where they are most populous. The official recognition offers protection in the economical context by allowing the same activities conducted in the official language to be carried out in the minority language in the local regions, and thus alleviating some of the disadvantages.
Likewise, a state can acknowledge the minority language as a national language or at least a regional language, to show the connection with the people of the area they occupy. Because languages strongly represent cultures, the acknowledgement of the connection symbolizes the identity of the inhabitants. Although under such scenario the government does not apportion resources to cultivate the minority cultures as it would if the languages were recognized, the government sets the standard of respect towards the minority languages and cultures that the majority cultures should also follow. Under the veil of ignorance, all individuals would have a de facto understanding of various ‘language etiquette’ to expect in regions where the cultural minority groups are most populous. This awareness would bypass the social contingency of being in a minority because instead, members of the majority culture would need to learn aspects of the minority culture in order to better integrate. Because most minority cultures are geographically localized to ensure that they can “live and work in their own culture,” Kymlicka would argue that the “special measures” of acknowledging the regional or national language “serve[s] to correct an advantage that non-aboriginal people have before anyone makes their choices [which is cultural security].” (Kymlicka 189) Asking majority groups to learn a little extra is not disadvantageous because it is by their free will of choice that those of the majority cultures have chosen to live in the minority region. Minority languages as national languages can result in its de jure usage amongst government dealings or even as the basic form of social communication within the region. Very good points
This development is the case for Hokkien, which is the regional language in Penang, Malaysia. Within Malaysia, the ethnic Chinese are a minority cultural group; however they make up 65% of the population in Penang, which can be interpreted as an example of the minority group “outbidding the present majority owners for resources…in order to secure the existence of their cultural community.” (Kymlicka 187) The Hokkien dialect is the cultural language of the ethnic Chinese group and is widely spoken throughout the region to the extent that many police officers, who are of the majority group, take a course on the language. Not only are members of the Chinese cultural group in Penang able to socialize with each other using their cultural language, interactions with the government have the added benefit of being conducted in their native language. This widespread use of Hokkien, with even the majority group acquiescing to its usage, effectively secures the culture and provides a structured context for members to choose their way of life.
On the contrary, Hokkien is the de facto national language in Taiwan, spoken by over 70% of the country’s population. While one may argue against Taiwanese Hokkien as a minority language, it should be viewed in the cultural context of which the language provides. On a broader scale, Taiwanese citizens are a minority cultural group within the Chinese ethnicity and have gathered their resources on the island of Taiwan. This de facto national language however is used in public announcements, as can be heard on public transport, and often the main language of conduct for daily business and/or governmental dealings amongst citizens. This locally acknowledged national language upholds the Taiwanese cultural structure, providing a unique identity to its members and is sometimes the basis of subtle discrimination against immigrants from mainland China. The differentiation of language by members illustrates the value of cultural membership. Because a Taiwanese individual has the “freedom to live her life as she chooses within her cultural community, then the primary good of cultural membership is properly recognized” and its promotion of equality at the original position justified. (Kymlicka 172) The de jure and de facto cases of Malaysian and Taiwanese Hokkien substantiate the need for policies, such as those regarding local task force or user-friendliness, to continue the usage of the cultural language in order to sustain the minority culture. Good examples
Lastly, education policies need to be adjusted to be in the language of the minority communities. Governments that have recognized minority languages may already have various provisions for the minority education system which countries with national or regional languages do not. Nevertheless concrete education laws should be drafted in all countries with minority languages which specifically detail that the language of instruction of the community be the minority language of the community. This stipulation should be “part of the respect owed [to them] as part of a cultural community.” (Kymlicka 195) Understanding that “language is the mirror of culture” (Jiang), the complete conduction of education in the minority language is a prerequisite in an enduring usage of the language, also extending to a lasting minority culture. Since education plays a dominant role in the foundation of one’s identity, if it is taught in the majority culture language, that process is robbing from the members the complete set of options available. The cultural heritage and language that is gradually lost through education in the majority language creates a social contingency , unjustified by Rawls. Theoretically, the majority culture is able to control, if not mold, the younger generations through the material taught, in particular the historical and social applications. Not only does such action fragment one’s cultural membership, it also slowly deteriorates the cultural community. Ultimately, “the existence of the cultural community…is likely to be undermined by the decisions of people outside the community.” (Kymlicka 189) The ‘decisions’ may act as internal restrictions, say limits the usage of the cultural language in formal settings, or would be a result of morally biased dominance from the majority culture; both of which violate the minority culture’s liberty and would produce unjustified socioeconomic inequality, not supported by either Kymlicka or Rawls. If perchance the minority culture wished to learn the majority culture’s language, they should not be denied the opportunity as it is their liberty. The fine distinction lies in the “teaching of English, not in English.” (Kymlicka 195) The Native American Languages Act of 1990 in the United States of America aims to “preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages.” (104, 01) The act recognizes the right “of Indian tribes and other Native American governing bodies to use the Native American languages as a medium of instruction in all schools funded by the Secretary of the Interior” (104, 5). Jacob Manatowa-Bailey, director of the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma’s Sauk Language Department, remarked that “when tribal children are given the opportunity to learn their language, they are happier, healthier human beings. It doesn’t mean their lives are easier. It does mean that their identities are stronger and that they are better prepared to face the challenges of being an Indigenous person in the modern world.” This statement exemplifies the importance of cultural membership and the role of language. Hence the principle of a comprehensive education in the minority language is a policy that should be more forcefully implemented by multicultural nations to preserve their minority cultures. Excellent point
As Kymlicka would agree, it is necessary to uphold the minority cultures because of the value one’s life derives from cultural membership. Knowing the almost inseparable relationship between culture and language, a starting point in safeguarding the cultural communities is by protecting the minority languages. This stance would be supported by Rawls with the acceptance of cultural membership as a primary good and are “liberties … to be equal by the first principle [of justice, to be reasonably expected to be to everyone’s advantage].” (Rawls 53) As such, governments of multicultural nations should provide sion policies at recognizing the minority languages. The action would allow the language to be more accessible within the cultural communities and the extended areas around, concretizing the cultural context. The institution of the minority language as a national language could serve as an alternative solution in case official recognition is not possible. The government may not directly require the practice of minority language, but the de facto custom in the minority communities provides enough significance for majority cultures to respect the minority languages and allow the minority culture to continue. Granting minority cultures the right to education in their minority languages perhaps is the most vital policy all governments should establish. Education in the minority languages forms the complete context of options of paths in life from which a member chooses and lays the foundation of cultural identity and historical heritage. The education process fortifies ones membership affinity and so, is fundamental in originating membership value. All aforementioned policies stress the importance of securing a stable culture and context to fully exercise one’s liberties. Under the veil of ignorance, no party would risk destabilizing their self-respect and thus would want to ensure having cultural membership, further exemplifying the value of cultural membership and the need for external protection.

Works Cited
Jiang, Wenying. "The Relationship between Culture and Language." ELT Journal 54.4 (2000): n. pag. Print.
Klug, Kelsey. "Native American Languages Act: Twenty Years Later, Has It Made a Difference?" Twenty Years Later, Has It Made a Difference? Cultural Survivor, 19 July 2012. Web. 08 Dec. 2012. .
Kymlicka, Will. Liberalism, Community, and Culture. Oxford [England: Clarendon, 1989. Print.
Native American Languages Act of 1990, § 104 (1990). Print.
"Penang Overview." Penang.ws. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2012. .
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard UP, 1971. Print.
"Taiwanese." Taiwanese Language and Pronunciation. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
Tan, Ann. "Mind Your Hokkien." The Star Online. N.p., 30 July 2009. Web. 08 Dec. 2012. .
Zimmermann, Dominik. "Better Protection of National Minorities and Minority Languages in Sweden?" International Law Observer Better Protection of National Minorities and Minority Languages in Sweden Comments. N.p., 16 Feb. 2010. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.