Latvian Language Policy : Unifying or Polarizing? Reconstructing the Political Debate on Language Reform in the Latvian Education System

(1)

Spring 2020 | LIU-IEI-FIL-A--20/03441--SE

Latvian Language Policy – Unifying

or Polarizing?

- Reconstructing the Political Debate on Language Reform in the Latvian

Education System

Samuel Holm

Supervisor: Khalid Khayati Examiner: Mikael Rundqvist

Word count: 24 770

Linköping University SE-581 83 Linköping +46 013- 28 10 00, www.liu.se

(2)

Abstract

Languages are not just systems for communication, they are also often a marker of ethnic and/or national identity and sometimes a politically contentious issue. A country where this is the case is Latvia, which has a large Russian-speaking population. During the Soviet occupation of Latvia, Russian became the dominant language in public life. Since regaining independence, Latvia has pursued language policies aimed at strengthening the position of the Latvian language, at the expense of the Russian. Latvian is the single official language and over the last decades, the bilingual education system inherited from the Soviet Union has moved towards an increasing share of Latvian as the language of instruction. In 2018, the Latvian parliament amended two educational laws, meaning the share of subjects being instructed in Latvian in so-called minority schools increased markedly. The decision was controversial and was opposed by parties with a large Russian-speaking voter base.

The purpose of the thesis is twofold. The first is to describe and analyse the arguments of political actors1_{regarding mono- and multilingual education, focusing on the reform of 2018. The arguments will} be analysed in relation to theory regarding the connection between nationalism/nationhood and language, and theory on linguistic minority rights.

The second part of the purpose is to advocate normatively and constructively for an approach regarding two different areas of policy: 1) Whether Russian should be an official language or not. 2) Language policy in education. The point of departure for the analysis is the aspiration to create a sense of national belonging, where both Russian-speakers and Latvian-speakers are seen as a part of the Latvian imagined community. In order to create this sense of inclusive imagined community, the approach seeks to be impartial in relation to the “pro-Latvian” and “pro-minority” positions with regards to language policy. The normative argumentation also seeks to include and balance the values of linguistic minority rights and preserving small languages (such as Latvian).

For the first part of the thesis, a descriptive idea analysis is applied. The arguments are analysed in relation to my theoretical framework, which consists of various concepts relating to the relationship between language and nationalism and models regarding linguistic rights. The main analytical tool is the concept of an imagined community, where a sense of national belonging and social cohesion can be based on either mono- or multilingualism. In the second part, a normative and constructive method is used to argue for my position in a systematic fashion.

The arguments of the proponents of the 2018 reform can be described as based on the idea that Latvian is the common and unifying language of all the Latvian residents and one of the foundations of the imagined Latvian community. At the same time, the proponents claim wanting to ensure that members of linguistic minorities can preserve their language, and that the reform provides the right to learn a minority language. The opponents of the reform argue that, while it is important that students learn the Latvian language, drastically decreasing the level of instruction is an assimilatory policy that will weaken rather than strengthen the national unity.

In the second part, the author suggests that Latvian will remain the single official language since

granting the Russian language official status may cause the language decline of Latvian, and because the issue is very divisive. In terms of language in the school system, the author concludes that Latvian ought to have a special position in Latvia and should therefore be the dominant language. Therefore, Latvian should be the main language of instruction, in the proportions prescribed by the 2018 reform. Another

(3)

conclusion is that all students, regardless of mother tongue, should learn Russian on at least an elementary level.

(4)

List of terms and abbreviations

Ethnie – term of Anthony Smith, defined as "named units of population with common ancestry myths and historical memories, elements of shared culture, some link with a historic territory and some measure of solidarity, at least among their elites"2_{. In this thesis, the term ethnicity/ethnic refers to the} same thing as ethnie.

Language policy – in this thesis, the term is used broadly and refers to regulations and laws.

Latvian-speakers/Latvian-speaking - In this thesis these terms refer to someone with Latvian as their native language.

Latviešu valoda – Latvian: “Latvian language”.

Nation – In this thesis, the author uses this term to refer to the political nation, or nation-state. When used by Latvian politicians and/or from a source originally in Latvian, it may have a different meaning, not least because the Latvian term for nationality, tautība, also corresponds to “ethnicity”.

Russian-speakers/ Russian-speaking – In this thesis these terms refer to someone with Russian as their native language.

Valsts valoda – Latvian: “state language”, has the same meaning as “official language”.

The terms “native language”, “first language” and “mother tongue” are used interchangeably in this thesis.

(AP!) – Attīstībai/Par! (Social liberal party)

(JKP) – Jaunā konservatīvā partija (Conservative party)

(LKS) – Latvijas Krievu savienība (Left-Wing, pro-Russian minority party) (LRA) – Latvijas Reģionu apvienība (Centrist, regionalist party)

MFA – Ministry of Foreign Affairs

MoES – Ministry of Science and Education MP - Member of Parliament

(NA) –Nacionālā apvienība "Visu Latvijai!"—"Tēvzemei un Brīvībai/LNNK" (Nationalist party) (S) – Saskaņa (Social Democratic Party, pro-Russian minority party)

(V/JV) – Vienotība/Jauna Vienotība (Centre-right, liberal-conservative party)

VISC - Valsts izglītības satura centrs (National Centre for Education of the Republic of Latvia) (ZZS) – Zaļo un Zemnieku savienība (Centre-right; agrarian, green conservative party)

(7)

7

1. Introduction

Despite strong globalization, the nation-state is still in many ways the primary political unit in the world. How a state with a multi-ethnic population should deal with the different groups is a relevant issue within the field of political science. Is it desirable for a nation-state to be as ethnically and linguistically homogenous as possible, with a dominating majority-culture? Or, ought the nation-state to be

multicultural? The point of departure for this thesis is the tension between phenomena such as nationhood, identity and languages. Specifically, the thesis will discuss Latvian language policy with regards to its linguistic minorities.

The chapter starts with introducing the topic of research. Then, the aim and research questions of the thesis are formulated, the delimitations are outlined and the relevancy motivated. This chapter also contains an overview of the demographics, contemporary Latvian language policy and the Latvian political landscape. The chapter ends with a more detailed outline of the implementation of the 2018 reform.

1.1 Introducing the topic of research

During the almost 50 years that the Soviet Union occupied Latvia, the demographic composition

changed drastically. This was largely due to an internal migration policy within the union that meant that many Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians moved to Latvia. In 1935, 73 percent of the population was classified as ethnically Latvian, in 1989 the share had fallen to 52 percent.3_{Latvia was also on the} receiving end of a Russification policy. Under the slogan of “merging the nations”4_{, the official purpose} was “social and cultural unification of all ethnic groups on the basis of Soviet Russian culture”5_.

According to Khazanov and Silova, the real purpose was to assimilate the different ethnicities and establish Russian as a lingua franca in the Soviet Union.6_{Hence, Russian became a mandatory second} language for Latvian-speakers.7_{According to Priedite, it was certainly possible to acquire education in} Latvian, but in order to obtain ”highly qualified employment positions”8_{or a doctoral degree one had to}

be proficient in Russian.9

In 1988, the Supreme Soviet of the Latvian SSR voted to make Latvian the official language of Latvia, alongside Russian. Four years later, it was decided that Latvian would be the only official language and in 1999 the State Language Law was adopted.10_{Additionally, the status of the Latvian language was}

strengthened during the late 1990’s through a series of constitutional amendments, and in year 2000 different levels of language requirements were introduced for various professions.11_{In 2012 Latvia held} a referendum on making Russian the second official language. The “no-side” won convincingly.12

3_{Kuczyńska-Zonik (2017) p.3}

4_{Khazanov (1995) in Cernakova (2014) p. 11}

5_{Khazanov (1995) refered to in Silova (2006) p. 36 (In turn, the author has found the quote in Cernakova (2014)}

p.11)

6_{Khazanov (1995) and Silova (2006) in Cernakova (2014) p. 11} 7_{Silova (2006) in Cernakova (2014) p. 11} 8_{Priedite (2003) p. 1} 9_Ibid. 10_{Priedite (2003) pp. 3, 6-7. Hjertonsson (2001) p. 56} 11_{Priedite (2003) p. 7} 12_{Druviete (2016) p. 1}

(8)

8 As a part of the Soviet “heritage”, the independent Republic of Latvia, with regards to languages of instruction, has had two parallel education systems. At primary and secondary level there has been the “mainstream” of Latvian schools and so-called minority schools, where the language of instruction has been another language, primarily Russian. Since 2004, the minority schools are required to teach 60 percent of the subjects in Latvian, and the remaining 40 percent in the minority language. It was up to the schools themselves to decide which subjects they would teach in which language. Tendencies to strengthen the position of Latvian in minority schools began already in 1998. However, the reform that then started gave more room for flexibility: “each minority primary school was offered a menu of four reform models that differed in the proportions of the respective languages of instruction as well as in the speed of implementation”.13_{According to Pavlenko, a reform proposal passed already in 1998,} which meant that all upper secondary school education should take place in Latvian starting 2004. However, the proposal met hard resistance and was revised to the "60/40 model".14_Furthermore, starting the school year of 2006/2007, all final exams at high school level had to be in Latvian. However, pupils had the right to answer in the school’s minority language, predominantly Russian, up until the school year 2017/2018.

On the 22nd_{of March 2018 the Saeima, the Latvian parliament, approved amendments to the Education} Law and the General Education Law (hereafter referred to as “the 2018 reform”) in the final reading.15 The amendments meant that, at pre-school and primary school level, the share of topics/lessons that had to be instructed in Latvian (in minority schools) were markedly increased. At high school level all instruction must be in Latvian. However, the Latvian government states that, in order to meet international obligations, national minorities will be “able to study minority language, literature and other subjects related to their culture and history in their native language.”16_{This reform is}

implemented in different steps until the school year of 2020/2021. (The reform will be described in greater detail in section 1.8.) The reform has been politically controversial and has sparked considerable resistance from different parts of the Russian community, both outside and inside of Latvia.17_For instance, the Russian foreign affairs called the decision “odious”.18_{In connection to this, it is worth} mentioning that Russia has accused Latvia “in international forums of violating the human rights of the minorities in their legislation on citizenship, language and schools.”19_{Furthermore, according to Teodor,} Russia has, in the post-Soviet period, been involved in “emotional exchanges over language-related issues and disagreements over language policies.”20_{Inside Latvia, the party Saskana filed a lawsuit} arguing the reform to be unconstitutional and discriminatory. In April 2019, the Constitutional Court ruled that the transition to instruction in the state language was constitutional.21_{In September 2019,} the ruling coalition decided to support the proposal of Nacionala Apvieniba (NA) to fully transition to Latvian as the sole language of instruction at all levels of education. However, when the full transition will take place is not certain and the discussion is ongoing.22

13_{Ivlevs & King (2014) pp. 153-154} 14_{Pavlenko (2011) p. 43}

15_{www.lsm.lv (2018-03-23)}

16_{Latvia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2018-06-18)}

17_{lsm.lv (2018-03-23) , tass.com (2018-09-15), euroactive.com (2018-06-25)} 18_{NPR (2018-10-28)} 19_{UI (2010)} 20_{Teodor (2015-03-31)} 21_{lsm.lv (2019-04-23)} 22_{lsm.lv (2019-09-24), la.lv (2020-02-13)}

(9)

9 The author is curious of how arguments in the debate surrounding the 2018 reform relates to different views on the relationship between language and nationalism, and linguistic minority rights. Different positions on issues regarding language policy in education is often connected to different views on the role of different languages in relation to the national identity.

Issues regarding minority rights and languages are often very politically sensitive in Latvia, and the author’s own experiences from living in Latvia informs him that the tone of the debate sometimes becomes polarizing and borderline irreconcilable. Therefore, the author also strives to offer a

compromise-oriented approach on language policy that aims for including all linguistic groups in a sense of national belonging.

1.2 Aim & purpose

The purpose of the thesis is twofold. The first is to describe and analyse the arguments of political actors23_{regarding mono- and multilingual education, focusing on the reform of 2018. The arguments} will be analysed in relation to theory regarding the connection between nationalism/nationhood and language, and theory on linguistic minority rights.

The second part of the purpose is to advocate normatively and constructively for an approach regarding two different areas of policy: 1) Whether Russian should be an official language or not. 2) Language policy in education. The point of departure for the analysis is the aspiration to create a sense of national belonging, where both Russian-speakers and Latvian-speakers are seen as a part of the Latvian imagined community. In order to create this sense of an inclusive imagined community, the approach seeks to be impartial in relation to the “pro-Latvian” and “pro-minority” positions with regards to language policy. The normative argumentation also seeks to include and balance the values of linguistic minority rights and preserving small languages (such as Latvian).

In order to fulfil the aim, I have formulated the following research questions:

1. How can we understand the arguments for and against the 2018 reform in relation to aforementioned theories?

2. How can the arguments of proponents and opponents be understood in relation to the concepts imagined community and national unity?

3. What can a normative and constructive approach with regards to official language and language policy in education, with the goal of creating an inclusive imagined community, look like? The observant reader may see some overlap between the first and second question. The concept of imagined community is included in “aforementioned theories”, but the narrower scope of the second research question is used to bring focus to the main, or most central, concepts/themes of the

theoretical framework.

(10)

10

1.3 Delimitations

The study object of the thesis is the Latvian language policy in the school system – from pre-school up to high school, and the focus will be on the 2018 reform. The reform will be studied through the way of studying the surrounding political debate. The ongoing discussions24_{about further transition to}

instruction in Latvian will not be discussed in this thesis. However, in a few instances, the thesis contains material or opinions related to the ongoing discussion. When such material is used as a point of

reference, the author will motivate why this was done.

Although the focus of this thesis is on the 2018 reform, it will be connected to the wider discussion of language policy, since it is a case of language policy. (Latvian) language policy is the field, the language-of-instruction reform is the specific case within this field.

The author will not focus on evaluating the perceived level of success of the reform. Furthermore, this thesis does not focus on the educational benefits and setbacks with different approaches to language policy, but rather on connecting views on language policy to (different) views of national unity and belonging.

It has been debated by the opponents and proponents whether the 2018 reform is in accordance with international regulations and conventions on rights of (linguistic) minorities. However, this will not be discussed in this thesis since the purpose is to describe the arguments in relation to nationalism, and analysing arguments about international conventions requires a different theoretical framework. While the thesis includes a description regarding the government’s justification/motivation of the 2018 reform, the aim of the thesis is not to describe or explain the causes that led to the reform. Such an aim would call for another design, and, in order to be adequate, should examine what role different kinds of causes – economical, ideological, political etc. – had in the creation of the reform.

The empirical material is limited to political actors. For our purposes, this is defined as including parties in the Saeima (and one additional party, which is motivated in section 4.2). One reason for this is that the reform was a parliamentary decision. Additionally, government ministries are included in the definition. Since ministries are a part of the government, and the reform was passed by the parties included in, or supporting25_{the, governing coalition, they are included as proponents. Specifically, the} ministries for Education and Foreign Affairs are included since they have issued statements justifying the reform. Except parties and government ministries, the position of the Constitutional Court is also

included. This is due to the fact that the constitutional court, while being a judicial rather than political actor, made a ruling in a case regarding the constitutionality of the reform.

Since Russian is, by far, the most widely spoken minority language in Latvia, and because Russian-speakers have arranged public protests, the thesis will focus on the Russian-speaking minority. This means that the arguments focus on Russian as a language of instruction, rather than minority languages in general. In the normative proposal, even though all minorities should be included in the imagined community, my discussion and recommendations focus exclusively on how to include the Russian-speaking community in the Latvian imagined community.

The normative part will propose an approach focusing on language policy for the education system, more specifically pre-school up to high school, since it is the stages of education that the 2018 reform

24_{See under 1.1}

(11)

11 concerns. However, since the issue of language policy in the education system is a part of the wider framework of language policy within a state, the normative analysis will also assess language policy on a more macro-level, i.e. by discussing whether Russian should be a second official language. Highly detailed policy proposals are not given. Instead, the normative/constructive assessment is about proposing an inclusive and balanced approach to language policy.

The aspect of Russia’s foreign policy in relation to Latvian language policy is of relevance, but it will not be discussed in this thesis since it would require a different theoretical framework. Furthermore, including foreign actors in a thesis about a domestic political debate risks resulting in a thesis without a clear focus.

1.4 Relevancy and contribution

The topic and aim are scientifically relevant because it examines a political discussion from the lens of nationalism and linguistic rights. The thesis describes different accounts on how a nation-state should ideally be demographically composed – linguistic (and cultural) homogeneity or diversity? The thesis also relates to aspects of national and minority identity: How does language policies affect the sense of national unity and social cohesion, and how does it affect the identity of linguistic minorities? What linguistic rights should minorities have?

The topic has societal relevance since the topic is controversial and sensitive and has been widely debated. The reform has also attracted criticism from the UN. 26_{Also, there is a gap of research} regarding Latvian language- and minority policy: there is no academic research about the education reform of 2018 and the surrounding debate.

Why is the Latvian case of reform, and the surrounding discussion, interesting? It is interesting because the Russian-speaking population is a rather big minority in a small country. There is also an interesting tension: Latvia is an example of a state with official monolingualism but claims it wants to preserve adequate rights for linguistic minorities. Why is the normative reasoning relevant? It is because the issue of the language reform is dividing the Latvian society. One purpose of this thesis is, as stated earlier, to offer something that brings it together.

The thesis’s contributions to the field of research are several. Through the theory-consuming approach I combine the classic concept of the imagined communities with other theories. The theory/theories applied are not novel, but methodologically speaking it is a new combination of concepts applied as a theoretical framework. The material partially consists of interviews with top politicians (an ex-minister, a party leader and an MP), which is a rather unique material in a master’s thesis on this subject. In terms of scientific theoretical perspective, the thesis uses a social constructivist approach. This affects the choice of theory – the concept of nations as imagined communities and theories asserting the

constructed nature of “neutral” state languages and cultures. The political arguments are connected to assessments and opinions regarding for example identity, history and (geo)politics.

26_{Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2018-01-26), Committee on the Elimination}

(12)

12 The most significant contribution is to, departing from a specified set of values and making use of theoretical concepts and empirical data from the descriptive part of the study, create an own approach oriented at reconciliation and compromise in a sensitive issue.

1.5 Linguistic and ethnic composition of Latvia

In 2017, 60.8 percent of the Latvian population had Latvian as their native language, 36.0 percent Russian and 3.2 percent another mother tongue. Since year 2000, the share of native Latvian-speakers has grown with 2.6 percentage points and the share of native Russian speakers and speakers of other languages has fallen with 1.5 and 0.9 percentage points respectively. The language spoken at home is not always the same as the person’s native language, marriages across nationalities being one of the explanations for this. 7.5 percent of the Latvian speakers use Russian at home, and 8.5 percent of Russian speakers use Latvian. The share of speakers of each language differs widely between different regions (see Figure 1 below). In Vidzeme, around 90 percent speak Latvian as their native language and/or at home, in Kurzeme the figure is 75-80 percent and in Zemgale 70-75 percent. Riga has around 55 percent Russian-speakers, Pieriga has 22-23 percent and in Latgale 55-60 percent speak Russian natively and/or at home. Additionally, the share of Russian speakers is significantly larger among the age group 55+ (43.3 percent) than among people under the age of 35 (31.6 percent).27

Figure 1: Statistical regions of Latvia

In the beginning of 2017, ethnic Latvians constituted 62 percent of the population. 25.4 percent were Russians, 3.3 percent Belarusians, 2.2 percent Ukrainians, 2.1 percent Poles. Five percent of the

population are Lithuanians, Jews, Roma, Germans, Estonians, Tatars or of another ethnicity.28_{There are,}

27_{Central Statistical Bureau} 28_{Eurydice (2020-02-13)}

(13)

13 as we can see, a significantly higher share of native Russian-speakers than there are ethnic Russians. Why it so, is a thesis topic in its own.

According to data from Eurobarometer, 86 percent of the Latvian population speaks Latvian as a native or foreign language. For Russian, the figure is 63,1 percent. This shows that Latvian is the most widely spoken language in Latvia. However, 35,8 percent speaks Russian as a foreign language, while only 14,8 percent of the population speak Latvian as a foreign language. The author uses this data with some caution since it is from 2012 and based on self-assessment surveys. This data also deviates substantially from the data provided by CSB regarding the percentage of native speakers of each language.29

1.6 Language law and policy in Latvia

To put the education reform in a larger policy context, a presentation of Latvian legislation regarding language is given.

1.6.1 Official Language Law

Both the Constitution of Latvia and the Official Language Law stipulates that Latvian is the only official language in Latvia.30_{Usually the term state language (valsts valoda in Latvian) is used, instead of official} language. The Official Language Law also recognizes the “Latgalian written language31_{as a historic} variant of the Latvian language.”32_{Furthermore, Section 4 of the law states that “the State shall ensure} the maintenance, protection and development of the Liv language33_{as the language of the indigenous} (autochthon) population.”34_{The purposes of the Latvian state language law are, according to itself, to} ensure:

”1) the maintenance, protection and development of the Latvian language; 2) the maintenance of the cultural and historic heritage of the Latvian nation;

3) the right to freely use the Latvian language in any sphere of life within the whole territory of Latvia; 4) the integration of members of ethnic minorities into the society of Latvia, while observing their rights to use their native language or other languages;

5) the increased influence of the Latvian language in the cultural environment of Latvia, to promote a more rapid integration of society.”35

1.6.2.The Constitution of Latvia

The Latvian constitution states that the proclamation of the Republic of Latvia was founded on the “the unwavering will of the Latvian nation to have its own State and its inalienable right of self-determination in order to guarantee the existence and development of the Latvian nation, its language and culture

29_{Languageknowledge.eu}

30_{Likumi.lv (2000), likumi.lv (1922)}

31_{There is some discussion whether Latgalian should be classified as its own language, or if it is a Latvian dialect.} 32_{Likumi.lv (2000) section 3.4}

33_{A Finno-Ugric language, related to Finnish and Estonian} 34_{Likumi.lv (2000) section 4}

(14)

14 throughout the centuries, to ensure freedom and promote welfare of the people of Latvia and each

individual.”36_{(My emphasis)}

The status of Latvian as the sole official language is seen as one of the country’s foundational values: “Loyalty to Latvia, the Latvian language as the only official language, freedom, equality, solidarity, justice, honesty, work ethic and family are the foundations of a cohesive society”. Article 18 of the constitution requires a person elected to the Saeima to, before taking office, give a “solemn promise” to, inter alia, defend “the Latvian language as the only official language.”37_{Article 114 guarantees the} right of ethnic minorities to “preserve and develop their language and their ethnic and cultural identity.”38

1.6.3 Education Law and General Education Law

The Education Law stipulates that “[i]n state, municipal and state higher education institutions, education is acquired in the state language.”39_{This also applies to private educational institutions.}40 Regarding minority education, the law states that “minority education programs are developed by an educational institution by choosing one of the sample curricula included in the state pre-school

education guidelines or the state basic education standard.”41_{(For requirements regarding the share of} education done in the state language, see 1.8). In this section, the law also prescribes that “minority education programs shall additionally include the content necessary for the acquisition of the relevant ethnic culture and the integration of national minorities in Latvia.”42_{Additionally, the General Education} Law states that one of the goals of pre-school (mandatory from the age of five) is that the child should have acquired “basic skills in the use of the state language”.43

1.7 Parliamentary and ruling parties

There are currently seven parties in the Saeima: • "Saskaņa" sociāldemokrātiskā partija, • Politiskā partija "KPV LV",

• Jaunā konservatīvā partija, • Attīstībai/Par!,

• Nacionālā apvienība "Visu Latvijai!"-"Tēvzemei un Brīvībai/LNNK", • Zaļo un Zemnieku savienība

• Jaunā Vienotība

All parties except Saskaņa and Zaļo un Zemnieku savienība are a part of the current governing coalition. The parties that consisted the ruling coalition in 2018, when the reform was passed, were (NA), (ZZS) and (V).44

36_{Likumi.lv (1922) preamble} 37_{Likumi.lv (1922) art. 18} 38_{Likumi.lv (1922) art. 114} 39_{Izglītības likums, 9. pants.} 40_Ibid.

41_{Izglītības likums, 41. pants.} 42_Ibid.

43_{Vispārējās izglītības likums, 20. Pants.}

(15)

15

1.8 The reform regarding language of instruction

According to the Minister of Education at the time, Karlis Sadurskis, the 2018 language reform is a part of a larger educational reform regarding the curriculum of the Latvian education system.45

The implementation of the 2018 reform is done gradually. Starting the school year 2017/2018, the central examinations in 12th_{grade can only be taken in Latvian. The following year, “new educational} guidelines for preschool will ensure significant increase in the role of the Latvian language in the learning process from the age of five.”46_{From pre-school to high school, the studies are still bilingual.} Additionally, the content of state examination for students in the 9th_{grade are to be in Latvian,} however, the students can choose whether to respond in Latvian or Russian.47

In the 2019/2020 school year, there are three major changes:

1. The five existing models for minority education will be replaced with three new models, at grades 1-6.48

2. The transition starts to have at least 80 percent of the curriculum for grades 7-9 in Latvian.49 3. All state examinations in the 9th_{grade has to be taken in Latvian.}50

During the schoolyear 2020/2021, “all general subjects in grades 10-11 in general education institutions will be taught in Latvian.” And the following schoolyear, this will apply to students in 12th_{grade as well.} As mentioned earlier, “subjects related to the respective minority’s language, literature, culture and history will continue to be taught in the students’ mother tongue.”51_{When the reform is completed, at} least 50 percent of the curriculum for grades 1-6 has to be in Latvian. For grades 7-9, the figure is 80 percent, and in high school (grades 10-12) 100 percent of the curriculum will be in Latvian (with the aforementioned exceptions).52_{All parties in the Saeima except Harmony voted in favour of the reform.}53

1.9 Disposition

The next chapter presents some of the research done in this field, chapter 3 presents the theoretical framework and chapter 4 contains a description of the methods and arguments used, as well as a critical discussion about this. In Chapter 5, the arguments of the political actors are presented and analysed, and the normative/constructive argumentation is outlined. In the final chapter, the findings of this thesis are discussed in relation to its aim and the earlier research. Suggestions to further research are also offered.

45_{Sadurskis (2020-05-10)}

46_{Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2018-06-18)}

47_{Minstry of Education and Science (2018-06-18) Image} 48_Ibid.

49_{Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2018-06-18)} 50_Ibid.

51_Ibid.

52_{Minstry of Education and Science (2018-06-18) Image} 53_{Saeima (2018-02-12)}

(16)

16

2. Previous research

In this chapter, I present some of the research that has been done previously in this field and discuss how the different studies provide a useful “background” for my thesis. There have been several studies in the area in which this thesis belongs – Latvian language policy and the situation of linguistic

minorities. The research presented below concerns minority attitudes towards learning the majority language, the debate surrounding the reform of 2004, Latvian language policies in general, the connection between language and nationalism, and mono- and multilingualism.

2.1 Research about Latvia

Romanov differentiates between integrative and instrumental reasons for learning Latvian. Persons with integrative reasons and a positive view of the majority language and -culture display a stronger will of learning the language than those with only instrumental motivation. Romanov also argues that Russian-speakers living in Latvian-dominated areas are more prone to “shift” to Latvian. 54_{Cara studied the} attitudes and behaviour of young Russian-speakers enrolled in Russian-medium schools in Riga prior to and after the education reform of 2004. She found that pupils and their parents preferred being (or becoming) bilingual rather than either not learning Latvian at all or abandoning their mother tongue altogether.55_{Normative propositions are often, partly, relying on statements regarding empirical} conditions.56_{Therefore, knowledge about these attitudes regarding Latvian-language education may be} a valuable component in crafting a sound, normative proposal.

Ivlevs and King found that the reform of 2004 markedly affected the results of students in minority schools negatively. However, the drop in performance levels were largest the first years after the reform. The researchers concluded there might have been some recovery, but it was too early to determine whether or not it is the case. 57_{To study the effects of one language/education reform and} to study the debate surrounding another, similar, reform is to approach the same area of research from different angles. Together they can contribute to a more multifaceted description of the study object, which is language policy in the education system.

Hogan-Brun studied the “macro framing”58_{in the Latvian-language and Russian-language media outlets} regarding the public debate surrounding the reform of 2004. Russian-language media argued that the reform was an expression of “assimilating ‘Latvianization’”59_{. Latvian-language media, on the other} hand, contended that Russian-language media was spreading “untruths and commonplace

stereotypes”60_{; “the position of the Russian language was protected since most of its speakers chose the} maintenance of Russian anyway”.61_{Hogan-Brun concluded that “more attention may}

need to be paid in the future to the multilingual nature of the resident population.” She also argues that the increasingly salient role of Latvian in minority schools will, at least for the time being, “compete with

54_{Romanov (2000) in Cernakova (2014) p. 15} 55_{Cara (2010) in Cernakova (2014) pp. 15-16} 56_{Badersten (2003)}

57_{Ivlevs & King (2014)}

58_{See Hogan-Brun (2006) pp. 322-323 for more information about this term.} 59_{Hogan-Brun (2006) p. 324}

60_Ibid. 61_Ibid.

(17)

17 the identity values associated with the minority languages, especially Russian.”62_Furthermore, Hogan-Brun also pointed out that language choice is increasingly viewed as a human right. Her most central conclusion, however, is arguably that there is a ”discrepancy in present-day Latvia between language policy (as laid down by law) and actual beliefs, needs and practices amongst majority and minority communities.”63_{Like Hogan-Brun’s paper, this thesis describes the debate surrounding a} language-related, Latvian education reform. Howbeit, in this thesis the focus is not on the framing of the debate in media, but rather on the arguments of political actors. This constitutes an important complementing aspect (to media) of the public debate. My thesis also offers an understanding of the arguments of the (party-)political part of the public debate in relation to theories regarding nationalism and language policy. Through my thesis I also contribute to bringing “more attention” to the fact that the Latvian society is bi-/multilingual64_{. Finally, the phenomenon that a more salient position for the Latvian} language in minority schools can compete with a Russian-speaking identity, is relevant to keep in mind whilst doing the normative argumentation.

Pavlenko sees a contradiction between a person’s right to speak her native language and what she views as a stance according to which the languages themselves have rights. She argues that Latvia, since the restoration of independence, has protected and promoted the rights of the Latvian language. Thus, Latvia has replaced “official bilingualism” with “official monolingualism”, which she views as

problematic. It is humans that should have rights, not languages.65_{The stance that the language policy} of the Latvian state is unfair can be seen as a contribution to the ongoing public discussion regarding the statuses of different languages in Latvia. Thus, the thesis connects with Pavlenko’s publication

concerning the state language policy in relation to the rights of minorities and national identity. There are also two master’s theses about Latvian language policy. Cernakova examined what factors affect the choice of schools, with regards to the language of instruction, that Russian- and Polish-speaking parents made for their children. She found that preserving the mother tongue was viewed as having an intrinsic value, which “spoke” in favour of choosing a minority school.66_{On the other hand,} the instrumental goals such as being accepted by the ethnic Latvians also affected the choice, in the direction of choosing an Latvian-medium school. Hjertonsson studied in 2001 to what extent Latvian language policy was in accordance with international law regarding linguistic minority rights. She found significant discrepancy between the two.67_{This master’s thesis contributes to the body of research} about Latvian language policy from a new angle, namely, analysing arguments regarding a language reform in relation to theories on the connection between nationalism/nationhood and language, and theory on linguistic minority rights.

62_{Hogan-Brun p. 330} 63_Ibid.

64_{Two major languages, but several minority languages.} 65_{Pavlenko (2011)}

66_{Cernakova (2014)} 67_{Hjertonsson (2001)}

(18)

18

2.2 Language and nationalism

Spires writes about Lithuanian linguistic nationalism in the nineteenth and twentieth century.

Nationalist movements using language as a rallying point is not uncommon, but in the Lithuanian case the language was central to the nationalist cause. A foundation of this linguistic nationalism was the claims to antiquity, often made by scientists. In a document from 1921 issued by the Lithuanian Information Bureau an anonymous author stated that “something significant clings to a people who, amidst the ocean of Slavs and Teutons, have preserved up to the present day their ethnical unity, unique language, and peculiar ancient civilisation.”68_{The language, perceived by many to be under an} existential threat, was unique because of its “antiquity and archaism, factors which were held to ‘ennoble’ the people who spoke it, and which made the preservation of the language a national imperative.”69_{In reality, however, there were no books in Lithuanian up until the 16}th_{century, the} language had never been a state language, and at times even people who considered themselves to be Lithuanian disregarded the language.70_{Nonetheless, the language and it’s antiquity was central to the} nationalist discourse, which implied that “one could not be a true Lithuanian until one ‘recovered’ the ancestral language”.71

Skerrett studied the attitudes of Russian- and Finnish-speakers living in Estonia about normalization or Estonianization. In Catalonia, normalization is the official term for the policy that is about “increasing the number of public and private domains, [where] the Catalan language should become the unmarked (i.e. normal) choice for all citizens of Catalonia, wherever their origins.”72_{In Estonia there has been,} since the regaining of independence in 1991, efforts to “reverse the decline in the public use of Estonian that had occurred during the Soviet occupation.”73_{He concluded that the Russian- and Finnish-speaking} interviewees agreed that “because of the period of Soviet occupation of Estonia, the national language needs to be maintained and developed in an official capacity.”74_{Skerrett and the interviewees also} discussed the protection of languages, where the status of Estonian language was compared to the status of Swedish in Finland:

“It could be argued that Swedish needs protection as a minority language, where Estonian as a majority language does not. However, taking into account Russian’s inherited lingua franca status places Estonian’s majority status in question, as, overall, the number of people who can speak Russian in Estonia is still larger than the number of people who can speak Estonian.”75

Skerrett argues that making Russian an official language might not promote normalization in the short term, but maybe in the long term. This is because it could promote “integration into the Estonian state by increasing the feeling of belonging to the country”76_{This study is relevant because Latvia’s}

sociolinguistic situation is similar to that of Estonia – both countries were annexed and occupied by the Soviet Union and were subject to the dominance of the Russian language. Whether Estonian needs

68_{Lithuanian Information Bureau (1921) p. 1 in Spires (1999) p. 485} 69_{Spires p. 486}

70_{Ibid. 486, 488} 71_{Ibid. p. 498}

72_{Skerrett (2012) p. 364, quoting (Laitin 1992, p. 150; Skerrett 2007)} 73_{Skerrett p. 364}

74_{Ibid. p. 381} 75_{Ibid. p. 382} 76_{Ibid. p. 383}

(19)

19 protection because of “Russian’s inherited lingua franca status”, and the potential effects of giving Russian official status is therefore something that can be applied to the Latvian context as well.

2.3 Monolingualism and multilingualism

Tove Skutnabb-Kangas states that the choice of language of instruction is affected by both so-called external and internal pressure. Internal pressure is generated domestically, and the external kind comes from foreign countries and actors. The pressure can be of many kinds: social, political, economic, technical and ideological. Previously, the choice of language of instruction may have been connected to internal pressures, and the choice of which foreign languages that are taught in schools is affected by external factors. However, Skutnabb-Kangas argues that the distinction between internal and external pressure is nowadays hard to make.77

Skutnabb-Kangas sees the approaches to linguistic policy on a spectrum where the two ends are called multilingual diversity and monolingual reductionism78_{. According to Skutnabb-Kangas the “ideology of} monolingual reductionism seems to me to be connected with the idea of an imagined community (Anderson 1983): the mythical, homogenous nation-state (a state with one nation and one language) which does not exist anywhere in the world.”79_{This nation should be united by one language. Therefore,} other (minority) nations within the nation-state is an anomaly and, potentially, a threat to its unity and survival. To reduce the level of threat the majority tries to convince the minority that it is “small and backward”80_{and that it has “’everything to gain from merging into greater nations’(…) and that their} languages are ‘doomed to disappear’”81_.

Her assessment of the approaches is highly normative: Monolingualism is, globally speaking, considered an anomaly – most people and states are, although sometimes not officially, bi- or multilingual.

Furthermore, she critiques the “myths” that monolingualism is both desirable and unavoidable.82 In the book “Who is afraid of multilingual education?”, the Iranian language policy in the education system is discussed. Laila Aghai, who reviewed the book, argued that:

“Skutnabb-Kangas explains that the unity argument is commonly used among policymakers who oppose multilingual education. Rejection of multilingualism stems from the beliefs that a) children will not learn the official language if they are taught in their mother tongue, b) Farsi will become an endangered language if schools stop teaching it, and c) teaching minority languages will result in separation, cultural isolation, and lack of assimilation. Thus, the one-nation-one-language ideology is introduced by politicians and practiced nationwide.”83

In conclusion, Skutnabb-Kangas discusses the monolingualist perception that linguistic uniformity is a prerequisite for national unity. Whether this notion is true or not will (likely) be an essential component of the political debate in Latvia.

77_{Skutnabb-Kangas (1996) p. 175}

78_{She also uses the term “monolingual stupidity/naivety”} 79_{Ibid. p. 177}

80_{Ibid. p. 178} 81_{Ibid. p. 178} 82_{Ibid. pp. 181-185} 83_{Aghai (2019) p. 204}

(20)

20

3.Theory

The author’s view on the role of theory in this thesis is that it is necessary to use several kinds of theories and concepts – and several aspects of earlier research – related to language and nationalism. The ambition is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the debate, not to test a particular theory’s ability to explain a certain phenomenon. According to Esaiasson et. al., this is a characteristic of a “theory consuming” approach.84_{With that said, the explanatory power of the theories is of course of} relevance. This will be discussed in the final chapter of the thesis.

The theoretical framework of the thesis is mainly based on concepts that can be find in the two books Language and Minority Rights by Stephen May and Imagined communities by Benedict Andersson. I have chosen Stephen May’s book since it focuses explicitly on what linguistic rights minorities should have, and the connection between language identity and nationhood. (It also offers a good overview on different, both historical and theoretical, approaches to nationalism, language and minority rights.) Anderson’s book has been highly influential in the field and contains a compelling account of the character of national belonging – a strong and meaningful but imagined community.

The theories and research presented in this chapter are used both in the descriptive and normative part. Some parts are used for both purposes, some only for one of them.

3.1 Imagined communities

My theoretical framework has as its point of departure Anderson’s thoughts, that a nation is an imagined community. A family, a sports association or a small village might be small enough for people to feel a sense of community and belonging based on interpersonal relationships. But in order to create a sense of community between millions of people that do not know each other at all, it must be

imagined, rather than relation based.85_{That the nations are imagined communities does not mean that} they are imaginary. According to May, Anderson’s stance is reminiscent of the early modernists, which “highlighted the fictional elements of nation formation. However, they also assumed that nations, once formed, were real communities of culture and power.”86

According to Anderson, one of the most important causes for nationalism was the birth of so-called print capitalism. This technology made it possible to produce books in large quantities, and the

capitalists were always looking for new markets. Therefore, when the Latin market was saturated book printers aimed for the market of vernacular-speaking monoglots.87_{It should also be said that the} Protestant Reformation and print-capitalism had a somewhat “symbiotic” relationship, that reinforced each other.88

Before book printing, the spoken vernaculars were highly unstandardized, and speakers of different variants/dialects often had considerable difficulties to communicate. As Anderson puts it: “Nothing served to ‘assemble’ related vernaculars more than capitalism, which, within the limits of grammars and syntaxes, created mechanically reproduced print-languages capable of dissemination through the

84_{Esaiasson et. al. (2017) pp. 42-43} 85_{Andersson (2016) p. 6}

86_{May (2001) p. 68} 87_{Anderson pp. 37-38} 88_{Ibid. pp. 39-40}

(21)

21 markets.”89_{A factor that “aided” print-capitalism in strengthening the sense of national consciousness} was the emerging use of vernaculars as administrative languages. However, Anderson emphasizes that these were state languages not national ones, and the “choice” (Anderson’s quotation mark) of the state languages was slow, gradual and pragmatic rather than deliberate action inspired by nationalist thought. As an example, the court of the Russian dynasty Romanov used German and French. Anderson also clarifies that these languages concerned the state administration, there was little will to impose them on the general public.90

Print-languages contributed to the sense of national consciousness in several ways. “It created unified fields of exchange and communication below Latin and above the spoken vernaculars.”91_{This meant} that speakers of widely different varieties of a language, that would not understand each other in speech, could do so through writing. Anderson states that:

“In the process, they gradually became aware of the hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people in their particular language field, and at the same time that only those hundreds of thousands, or millions, so belonged. These fellow-readers, to whom they were connected through print, formed (…) the embryo of the nationally imagined community”92

Print-language also “stabilized” languages which “in the long run helped to build that image of antiquity so central to the subjective idea of the nation.”93_{A third impact that print-languages had was that they} gave rise to what Anderson calls languages-of-power. Standardization of writing was based on some dialect(s) rather than others. The variants who were not so similar to the official one consequently ended up in a situation with less power than the dominant dialect.94_{This aspect will be further discussed} in section 3.3.

According to May’s reading of Imagined Communities, the increasing centralization of the state also contributed to the awakening of national identity. Through the state (education system) “a shared sense of a particular nation’s history – along with its language(s) and cultural symbols – began to be

cultivated.”95

Anderson expresses in a poetic way the relation between language and nationalism:

“What the eye is to the lover – that particular, ordinary eye he or she is born with – language – whatever language history has made his or her mother tongue – is to the patriot. Through language, encountered at mother’s knee and parted only at the grave, pasts are restored, fellowships are imagined, and futures dreamed.”96 89_{Andersson p. 44} 90_{Andersson pp. 40-42} 91_Ibid. 92_Ibid. 93_Ibid. 94_{Ibid. p. 45}

95_{May (2001) p. 67. For concrete examples, see for instance Anderson p. 201} 96_{Andersson p. 154}

(22)

22

3.1.1 Applying “imagined community” as an analytical tool

In Anderson’s book, the term imagined communities refers to how the sense of nationhood arose in the modern age. In this thesis the imagined community concept will be used as a lens to analyse the empiric material, along with other concepts (see the bullet list in section 4.1). An imagined community, in this thesis, refers to a group – inhabitants of a nation-state – that feel a sense of belonging to the same political nation, but also to a common cultural97_{community; that they are one people, one tauta}98_!

An interesting quality with the concept of imagined communities is that it appears to be compatible with both a monolingual (and monocultural) approach, as well as a multilingual (and multicultural) one. A good example of proponents of a monolingual nation-state are the Jacobins of the French Revolution, who argued that “the unity of the Republic demands the unity of speech”99_{and that “…hatred of the Republic} speaks German, counter-revolution speaks Italian and fanatism speaks Basque”100_{. Furthermore, “the} ongoing maintenance of other languages was specifically opposed to the aims of the Revolution”101_Thus, the speakers of other languages and dialects than (the Parisian) French was not only linguistically different, they were political enemies of the post-revolutionary state. The multilingually oriented would instead argue that ethnic, political conflicts involving language are more likely to occur if the state supresses or ignores the linguistic demands and rights of minorities, than if it recognises these rights. May gives the bilingual states Belgium and Canada as examples of this principle.102

In line with the previous paragraph, the two main categories will be creation or maintenance of an imagined community through monolingualism (and monoculturalism), or through multilingualism (and multiculturalism). Though, as we will see in section 3.2, language has a connection with ethnicity and often is seen as a vital part of an ethnicity’s culture, in this thesis the focus will be on language: imagined communities based on multi- or monolingualism.

3.1.2 Defining monolingualism and multilingualism

For a (pro-Latvian) “monolingualist”, Latvian should be the unifying language of Latvia. A society that is officially multilingual, or “multilingual in the public sphere”, is hence undesirable. Consequently, the language of instruction in schools should be monolingual. Withal, monolingualism does not necessarily entail hostility to other ethnic groups or wanting to purge the country of other languages. A multilingualist approach, in this thesis, is characterized by seeing a bi-/multilingual Latvia as desirable. To push for monolingualism just stirs up hate among native speakers of a minority, or non-dominant, language. On a concrete level, “multilingualists” are in favour of several languages of instruction in schools.

The question (in the Latvian case) is not so much whether Russian and other languages should be allowed in the private sphere or not, but rather how many languages should be part of the official sphere. Furthermore, and more importantly, should there be only one language that works as a unifier of the Latvian people, a common language embraced by all its residents?

97_{Using a broad definition of culture} 98_{Latvian: ”nation”}

99_{May p. 159} 100_Ibid. 101_Ibid. 102_{May p. 152}

(23)

23

3.2 The role of language

May discusses the connections between language, minorities, identity and nationalism. He uses the words of Ernest Renan and states that “language may invite us to unite but it does not compel us to do so.”103_{Thus, May’s position is that language may be the most prominent marker of ethnic identity in} some cases, but not necessarily all. Furthermore, he states that “there is no inevitable correspondence between language and ethnicity.”104_{However, May clarifies that just because language is not (always)} the determining identity marker does not mean it is not an significant one. He points out that “language may not be intrinsically valuable in itself – it is not primordial – but it does have strong and felt

associations with ethnic and national identity.”105

The cultural significance of language helps to explain why language is not rarely used as a rallying point for ethnonationalist causes. May continues: “In this regard, the interconnections between the cultural and political dimensions of language become central, most obviously in the official status accorded to particular languages within the nation-state.”106

The “German Romantics” – Herder, Humboldt and Fichte – argued, contrary to May’s and Renan’s more constructivist approach, that the language was the most essential part of the character of a nation. It was the soul or spirit of the nation.107_{Humboldt states that: “For every language we can infer backwards} to the national character”.108_{In Kedourie’s work Nationalism he holds that the approach of the German} Romantics saw languages as “an outward sign of a group’s particular identity and a significant means of ensuring its continuation.”109_{Furthermore, Herder argued that notion of a volk}110_{without a language}

was absurd and self-contradictory.111

3.3 Language and power

A state/national language often is created by “choosing” one dialect out of many within a wide range of varieties of a language. May states that:

“’national’ languages are so called because they have been legitimated by the state and institutionalised within civil society, usually to the exclusion of other languages. Legitimation involves the formal recognition by the state of a particular language variety and this recognition is realised, usually, by the constitutional and /or legislative benediction of official status”112

Through the process explained above, the language gets “taken for granted”. Speakers of the national language hence receive a more advantageous position in society. They usually control the “areas of administration, politics, education and the economy”113_{. The other languages are often limited to the}

103_{May p. 129} 104_Ibid. 105_Ibid. 106_{Ibid. pp. 129-130} 107_{Cowan (1963) p.277 in May p. 57} 108_{Humboldt (1988) p. 154 in May p. 57} 109_{Kedourie (1960) p. 71 in May p.58} 110_{The German word for “people”}

111_{Barnard (1965) p. 57 in May (2001) p. 58} 112_{May p.150}

(24)

24 private domain. A minority language-speaker thus has to abandon their mother tongue if they want to get “greater access to the public realm.”114

May argues that the nation-state creates sociological minorities “by establishing a civic language and culture that is largely limited to, and representative of, the dominant ethnie.”115_{As a consequence,} minorities will not have linguistic and cultural rights if they are deemed different and deviating from that of the dominant ethnic group. In contrast, May claims that:

“there is a strong argument for schools extending and reconstituting what counts as ‘accepted’ and ‘acceptable’ cultural and linguistic knowledge. Moreover, the charge that such recognition would inevitably lead to a rampant cultural and linguistic relativism does not necessarily follow .(…) In short, greater

ethnolinguistic democracy does not necessarily imply ethnolinguistic equality – reasonable limits can still be drawn.”116

The nation-state reproduces the cultural and linguistic hegemony of the dominant ethnicity in a subtle way that portrays the national language and culture as something neutral, even though it is not.117 Fernand de Varennes argues that ”by imposing a language requirement, the state shows a definite preference towards some individuals on the basis of language… In other words, the imposition of a single language for use in state activities and services is by no means a neutral act.”118

About the decline of a language May writes that it “always occur in bilingual multilingual contexts, in which a ‘majority’ language – that is , a language with greater political power, privilege and social prestige comes to replace the range and functions of a minority language.“119_{Speakers of a minority} language will inevitably over time come to speak the majority language.120_{Although Latvian is the} majority language in Latvia, it is a small language in relation to the neighbouring Russian language. Also, as implied by the authors below, Russian has a legacy of being the dominant language in what once was the Soviet Union.

Pavlenko writes that in the Soviet era, Russian functioned, though not officially, as a state language. Therefore:

“Russian speakers in titular republics could afford to be monolingual or at least to behave as if they were, even if they studied titular languages in secondary school. Titular-language speakers were able to maintain their own languages with the support of the educational system and other titular-medium institutions but had to use L2 Russian if they desired specialized higher education and occupational mobility.”121

Marten writes that “as a consequence of the dominant role of Russian in Soviet Latvia, language legislation since the 1990s has aimed to reverse the language shift by reversing language prestige and functions.”122_{According to Paulston and Heidemann, “the driving factor behind the [Latvian] language} legislation is fear of impending language shift to Russian and the loss of Latvian forever.” The authors

114_{Nelde (1997) in May p. 152} 115_{May p. 92}

116_{Ibid. p. 168} 117_{Ibid. p. 92}

118_{de Varennes (1996a) p. 86-87, in May p. 152} 119_{May p. 1}

120_Ibid.

121_{Pavlenko (2011) p. 39} 122_{Marten (2010) p. 115}

(25)

25 imply this is due to the fact that the sizable Russian-speaking population in Latvia is mainly monoglot123_, while most Latvians are bilingual in Latvian and Russian.124

3.4 Nationalism and education

Elie Kedourie contends that “On nationalist theory… the purpose of education is not to transmit knowledge, traditional wisdom, and the ways devised by a society for attending to the common

concerns; its purpose rather is wholly political, to bend the will of the young to the will of the nation.”125 In nationalist political endeavours, the school system has been seen as a tool to create and reproduce a unified and unifying language and culture. According to Gellner, the “nationalist principle of ‘one state, one culture’ saw the state, via its education system, increasingly identified with a specific language and culture – invariably, that of the majority ethnic group, or dominant ethnie.”126_{(Emphasis in original)} May brings to attention the perceived trade-off that minorities face between preserving their linguistic and cultural identity and gaining educational and career-related opportunities. According to Secada and Lightfoot, this trade-off is increasingly viewed by minorities as a bad bargain: “give up your language and you might have opportunity”127_{(emphasis in original). Kenneth Howe claims that equal educational} opportunities for minorities are only valuable if they can acquire them without having to give up their identity.128

3.5 Language rights – tolerance or promotion?

Sociolinguist Heinz Kloss talks about linguistic rights in terms of tolerance-oriented rights and

promotion-oriented rights. The first kind of rights are about the right to “preserve one’s language in the private, non-governmental sphere of national life.”129_{These rights can be defined both narrowly and} broadly. May continues:

“They include the right of individuals to use their first language at home and in public, freedom of assembly and organization, the right to establish private cultural, economic and social institutions wherein the first language may be used, and the right to foster one’s first language in private schools. The key principle of such rights is that the state does ‘not interfere with efforts on the parts of the minority to make use of [their language] in the private domain.’130_”131

Promotion-oriented rights give rights related to the public or civic realm of the nation-state. This involves “public authorities [in] trying to promote a minority [language] by having it used in public institutions – legislative, administrative and educational, including the public schools.”132_(May’s brackets.) The application of these rights can vary from just providing official documents in said

123_{The notion of a monoglot Russian population may be up for debate. See Eurobarometer in section 1.5 for}

comparison.

124_{Paulston & Heidemann (2006) p. 299} 125_{Kedourie (1960) pp. 83-84, in May p. 172} 126_{May p. 168}

127_{Ibid. p.169}

128_{Howe (1992) p. 469 (in May p. 196)} 129_{May p. 185}

130_{Kloss (1977) p.2 (in May p. 185)} 131_{May p. 185}

Latvian Language Policy : Unifying or Polarizing? Reconstructing the Political Debate on Language Reform in the Latvian Education System