Previous parts:
- Part One – On the Issue of Language
- Part Two – On the Issue of Language
- Part Four – On the Issue of Language
Linguistics Apartheid: From Taboo to Celebration
Whenever the discussion revolves around the language issue, individuals on social media pounce on you, questioning why you’re stirring up ethno-linguistic biases. Here, the language issue transforms into a taboo, and you’re not allowed to touch it. From left to right, everyone stands united, accusing you of ethnic tendencies and linguistic apartheid. Ironically, while these very individuals demand you overlook the language issue, consciously or unconsciously, they themselves are deeply afflicted by linguistic zealotry. Sometimes, they unveil their masks in times of turmoil and crisis, resorting to literature tinged with racial and fascist undertones to suppress dissenters and critics. This seemingly benevolent and nationalist perspective of “we shouldn’t delve into nationalism” is more of an attempt to disarm and neutralize the opposing side, aiming to address the language issue as a serious political problem in Afghanistan.
When you criticize linguistic chauvinism, defenders of this narrow political orientation on social media put you on trial, expecting you to express regret for everything you’ve said and to prevent you from making such a mistake again in the future. However, when you critique the opposing front of this linguistic chauvinism, suddenly you’re transformed into a “nationalist” and a “patriot” who lacks concern based on ethno-linguistic biases for your people and language, and your heart supposedly burns for the “Afghan nation”! If you carefully observe this “nationalistic” stance, you’ll discern a rather blatant form of hypocrisy: the chauvinists aim to exploit even the most sincere political positions for their benefit. Perhaps deep down they say, let them engage in conflict among themselves as much as they want. The more they clash with each other, the easier and smoother it is for us to achieve our political goals.
As long as you attack linguistic chauvinism, the issue of language is taboo, and addressing it goes against the ‘spirit of national unity’; however, if you are in defense of this chauvinism and have no problem with the official and courtly historical narrative whose keywords are ‘Afghan identity’, ‘Islamic identity’, ‘national unity’, and so on, then not only is addressing the issue of language not wrong and divisive but it is also praised as a ‘scientific’ and ‘academic’ endeavor. Chauvinists, on both the left and right wings, spare no effort in supporting you. Your books and notes, which bear no resemblance to standard research works and are riddled with spelling and grammatical mistakes, are printed in thousands of copies and their unveiling ceremonies are held in luxurious and grand hotels and salons. This is happening while even publishing a short article on social media critiquing this situation and the reactionary and disastrous performance of linguistic chauvinism can turn into a major headache for you, let alone writing a pamphlet or a book on the subject. No matter how scholarly and standard your work may be, when it confronts the official and governmental narrative and challenges the lies of linguistic chauvinism, it becomes worthless, and every effort is made to belittle and ostracize you.
Left Reductionism
In the discourse on language, we often encounter a repetitive argument that tries to lure us into realism and free us from the critique we’ve imposed on the prevailing situation. They say that the issue of linguistic oppression will be consigned to history when fundamental societal issues are resolved, and therefore, there isn’t much need to raise its voice. Those affiliated with a movement that I call “left reductionism” believe that if their desired socialism dominates society, linguistic oppression will vanish on its own. Therefore, linguistic discussions shouldn’t take place when there is massive class-based poverty and problems. This argument, though old and outdated, remains perilous. Left chauvinism, through this argumentative game, seeks to provide its ethno-linguistic superiority with a “scientific” and “Marxist” cover and absolve itself from the “evil” of the language issue. This is the primary goal of left chauvinism with Stalinist tendencies; however, such a goal is heavily veiled under strange arguments to the extent that it’s difficult to recognize.
Stalinists argue in a way that suggests that the resolution of several issues, including class contradictions, will solve all the world’s problems. According to them, if socialism is implemented, the infrastructure (economy) will undergo a fundamental transformation, and the superstructure – which they consider language to be a part of – will also change.
Infrastructure and superstructure are important Marxist concepts that, like other dialectical dualities, influence each other in a mutual relationship, and the existence of one is a condition for the existence of the other. However, the issue of language doesn’t fit into this framework. While societal formations – economic formations – may change, languages around the world continue to thrive and evolve. In the former Soviet Union, where some believed class contradictions had ceased to exist, we saw the plight that befell “actually existing socialism,” and the consequence of that is now before our eyes. The former Soviet Union, whose primary language was Russian, fragmented into national-linguistic fragments: Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, and so on. With all the linguistic oppression perpetrated by the Russians, we see how each of these newly independent republics is striving to strengthen their national-linguistic identity with their living languages. If “actually existing socialism,” which aimed to overshadow other political and social struggles with the universal class struggle, failed to achieve its goal and from amidst all that effort and planning, the issue of language and nationality emerged again, then it’s clear that Russian Marxism had at least partly neglected the issue of language and nationality. Language, culture, and nationality are more stubborn than classical Marxists thought.
There is indeed a class struggle, and we must cry out against the oppression at the top; however, if individuals, with a reductionist approach, overlook the existing linguistic oppression in society, or hide it under the rubble of pleasant “Marxist” arguments, this act is fundamentally reactionary, and we must stand against it. No one has the right, under the guise of “national terminology” or any other name and title, to deprive others of the right to speak their mother tongue. Every person has the right to speak, read, and learn in their language. Advocating for the right to speak in one’s mother tongue and striving to promote and strengthen it – as long as it doesn’t impede the growth and development of other languages – doesn’t signify creating animosity among speakers of various languages but emphasizes equal access for all humans to their fundamental rights.
Previous parts:
- Part One – On the Issue of Language
- Part Two – On the Issue of Language
- Part Four – On the Issue of Language
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here: