Do "Language Rights" Serve Indigenous Interests?

Some Hopi and Other Queries Author(s): Peter Whiteley Reviewed work(s): Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 105, No. 4, Special Issue: Language Politics and Practices (Dec., 2003), pp. 712-722 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567136 . Accessed: 22/02/2012 21:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

PETER

WHITELEY

Do "Language Rights"Serve Indigenous Interests? Some Hopi and OtherQueries

ABSTRACT While the of use valuable, discourse language and contexts. article This rights social, historical neglects language incultural, examines someimplicationsthatneglect, of "oral"societies. small-scale, on especially indigenous, Drawing principally Hopi vis-a-vis I argue that discourse ona reflexivization rests oflanguage culture and examples, enhanced globalism. reified, Now language rights by becomes allegory ethnic an of sensibilities repositioned, example, Native language for in Ameriidentity. Preexisting sociolinguistic get cancommunitieswhich in has been as of and language hitherto deployed a technique privacy sovereignty, is language rights ideology and a secular with logocentric presumes democratic, and inNative use, linspaceoflanguage conflicting bothprivacy performativity values. Andsomelinguistic social both and guistic usagereinforces inequality, transnationally group-internally: language Here, rights contradict human other discourse requires also to its to rights. Language rights conanthropologyrethink recent antipathy theculture andtotreat andculture cept language objectively. [Keywords: values, language rights, sociolinguistic sovereignty, logocentrism, globalism] Hak~iapiy itamsuuplengi'yvayani. yaw The time will come, it is said, when we [humanity in willall speakone language. general] (recounted Harry -Hopi prophecy by Kewanimptewa, his Spiderclan, 1984,as heardfrom old uncles) Y ANY EVIDENT STANDARDof sociocultural justice,languagerights appearas a definitive good. But the underlying are and politiassumptions oftenethically and failto attendto multiplex callysimplistic operations of languagein culture and society. orderto assesswhat In is in of exactly beingarguedfor promoting languagerights and subaltern, minority indigenous, peoples,some examination of salientsocial and historical contextsis critical. In this regard, considerations culture of anthropological areespecially important. The discourse language of state rights presupposes dominationand is intrinsically counterhegemonic: of and Language aretherights individuals collective rights to or linguistic groups non-interference State, toasbythe sistance theState, theuseoftheir language, in own in by the use and its perpetuating ofthe language ensuringfuture in information State-provided and survival, receiving services their language, inensuring their in own and that exercise other of lawful fundamental rights, particularly human to the to rights theright vote, right a fair (e.g., the to the to trial, right receive education, right employwill or to ment), notbe handicapped subject discrimination linguistic for reasons. [Chen 1998:49]
AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 105(4):712-722.

This discoursethus counterposes subaltern groups,often in internally undifferentiated blocs, against the dominant statepower(cf.Rassool 1998). Its primary frame of reference nation-stateand global politics. Especially is in indigenous,nonliterate communities, superimposing that framemay radicallyrepositionlocal sociolinguistic sensibilities Hamel 1997). Promoting and defending (cf. the right speak,write, taughtin, or officially to be express value in a language entails,a priori,that that language and the culturewithinwhich it is located first undergo reflexivization. this I mean a processin which an exBy plicit consciousness of self and communityintrudes into daily life such that people become aware of their sharedpractices, of ideas, and forms lifenot only as intrinsicto what theyare, believe,and do but also as perceptible from a bird's-eye,"global" view. Once rea flexivized, languageand itsculture appear,in important contexts intercultural of to negotiation, be now in a subjunctive mood: a looking glass that regularlyreflects self-and group-identity difference back to its users and transmitsthat reflected image on an imagined global stage,as well as continuingto perform taken-for-granted communicative and otherquotidian functions.And the glass is not crafted indigenousinvention but, rather, by is a refraction from the state's panopticon: Counterhegemonicintentoperatesaccordingto termssetby the hegemoniccenter.

COPYRIGHT ? 2003, AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICALASSOCIATION

Whiteley * "Language Rights"and Hopi Queries To be the objectof a right, thus languageand culture mustfurther conceivedas separablefrom be reflexivized selfand community: The lookingglass takeson the form of a possession.Now languageand culture thought are of or sui of not as inherently constitutive expressive generis a certain worldbut,instead, detachable, as people and their to portable, some extenta productor effect out by a put even a commodity thatmaybe alienableand community, circulatein a marketplace. Language rightsdiscourseis thusassociatedas muchwithan idea ofproperty (as rights in defined Western law) and the capitalist economyas it is witha discourse human rights. of And thatmaywell conflict withprotectionist of interests small-scale indigenous likemanyNativeAmericans, thatseekto preserve groups, some sovereignty resist appropriation their the of and culturalforms themarket. by A further complicationlies in the factthat language are on rights predicated an idea of languagesas thingsin the world:One cannot have a rightto something thatis not objectively The identifiable. latentpositivism poand tentialessentialism thatrecognition in createsa problem forcurrent Fearthat"culture" in thought. anthropological the grounded,located,holisticsense enchains the discipline to theorygrown cold (in the presentinfatuation with culturalstudiesand continental philosophy)impels to avoid definitive cultural statements exanthropologists the negative:All that is solid meltsinto air. At the cept same time,it is anthropologically to counterintuitive opsuch an ostensible as languagerights indigefor pose good nous peoples (e.g., American Association Anthropological 2000)-if not forthe ethical reason alone, then forthe needs of science: If languageskeep dyingout at the presentrate,therewill be littleleftforlinguistic anthropolo2001; Krauss1996).1Caught,as giststo study(cf.Corbett usual, betweenthe academyand the world,anthropology findsitselfon the horns of a dilemma:to disavow lanas endorsement a positivist of guage rights entailing peror spectiveon languageand culture to embracethemon ethicaland pragmatic The grounds. issueof language rights a thus presents pivotalchallengenot only forindigenous but also forthevery peoples and the global-localdialectic in their wayanthropologists reimagine project thepresent. In brief, a language into a reflexivized transforming restson four object (forthe purposesof languagerights) foundations: a reduced,apoliticalconcept of culture (1) Boasianrelativism; the capacfrom (2) deriving ultimately and ityfora languageto be imaginedas both reified naturalized-in other the words, languagecan now be seen as a form;(3) an ideologicalprivileging thing,an objectifiable of logocentrism that resultsfromthe habits of literacy; and (4) a preexisting universalist discourse of human attachedto an ideologyof multiculturalism. With rights the exceptionof the second,which may immediately incite admonitions against essentialism,reification, and naturalism-that of unholytrinity cardinalanthropological sins-those foundations may not appearundulyproblematic (e.g., Phillipson and Skuttnab-Kangas 1995;

713

and 1994,2000; UNESCO 2002; Skuttnab-Kangas Phillipson Varennes2001). Butthe often-blithe absenceof complication in linguistic discoursestemsfrominsufficient rights attentionto the politics of language and cultureother than gross state and imperialimposition(cf. Paulston on 1997:79; Silverstein 1998:422). Simplereliance a liberal rationaleneglectskey sociolinguistic human-rights patterns in small-scale,subalterncommunities.Language and in rights humanrights maybe mutually contradictory some contexts.Moreover,language rightsdiscoursebeis oriented large-scale, to lityond anthropology primarily eratelanguageminorities, such as French Canada, Catain lan in Spain,Spanishin the UnitedStates, Punjabi in the United Kingdom, Swedishin Finland,et cetera(cf. Fishman 1994). In short, fight languagerights largely for the is and forthose-as a region, ethnicgroup,etc.wagedby long involved in the arena of nation-state politicsat a level recognizable withinthe state'sown terms.Fourthworld nonliterate peoples-many of whom,as small-scale, to groups,have a remoterelationship the state-are not theideologicaldriving force thisdiscourse. of concernhereis to pointtoward thosefurMy primary therpoliticalcontexts languagein societyand culture, of reflexivization objectification, and especially privis-a-vis in communities which the lanmarilyfororal-language foundations guageis at risk. aim is to questionthefour My oflanguagerights on how theyneglect discourse, focusing politicaleconomiesoflanguageuse, withexamplesdrawn from withthe Hopi (whoselanguage fieldwork principally is knownprimarily academicand pedagogiccirclesfor in its "timelessness," exemplarof Whorfian the relativism). Wherethisquestioning speaksto some current anthropoon logical thinking languageand culturein general,my comments theseconsiderations. on argument REFLEXIVITY: CULTURE AND LANGUAGE A IN SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD Cultural areanintegral ofhuman which rights part rights, areuniversal, indivisible interdependent. flourand The of the implementaishing creative diversity requires full tion cultural of as in 27 rights defined Article oftheUniversal DeclarationHuman of and 13 Rights inArticles and 15 of theInternational Covenant Economic, on Social andCultural All have the Rights. persons therefore right toexpress themselves tocreate disseminate and and their in work thelanguage their of and in choice, particularly their mother all are to tongue; persons entitled quality education training fully and that their cultural respect and have to in identity; all persons theright participate thecultural oftheir life choice conduct ownculand their tural to for and practices, subject respect human rights fundamental freedoms. 5, [Article UNESCOUniversal
Declaration Cultural on last Diversity, update May 19, 2003;cf.UNESCO2002:9-12]

with positionality, Throughtheirrecentpreoccupations deterriborders, hybridity, traveling, incommensurability, and have torializations, "writing against," anthropologists been trying jettisonthe veryidea of "culture." to Culture

714

AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 4 * December 2003 Bedouin identity fundisplays.Now, exceptforreligious in damentalists (who,whether Saudia Arabiaor Idaho, are motivatedby opposition to the perceived significantly we evils of relativism), have all become likeQuesalid (the Kwakwaka'wakwskeptic immortalizedby L&vi-Strauss the claimsof our cul[1963]),onlybelieving transcendent tureas metaphor. In the culturalreflexivization fromglobalresulting becomes somewhatdecentered: It ism, social perspective movesawayfrom primary a locuswithin grouptoward the a shifting space among groups-away fromthe grouptoward whatwe might theinteractive. call Classic internal to demonstrated ethnocentrism be a human ethnography universal:Thinkingof one's own people as the chosen people, the only truehumans,or those who live at the of is center the universe, cross-culturally pervasive. Beginof ningto think one's groupnotonlyin thissensebutalso as one part(and a small one at that)of a pluralworldof in sharedhumanity, whichidentities jostledoveramid are intersecting ethnoscapesand uneven access to resources, of idea involvessomething a sea-changein thatcentered the of group-identity. deterritorializaFurther, increasing via tion of cultural identities transnationalism-identities remaintiedtogether that,nonetheless, especially through electronic resources-hasrearranged cultural the map (see, 1997; Lowe e.g., Appadurai1996; Bhabha 1994; Clifford the and Lloyd 1998, among others).Anthropologically, system among verynotion of cultureas a terrain-bound like systems now destabilized. cultures languages is No or can insulate themselvesany longer fromglobal forces: Globalization "has pervaded communicationand conno autonomy of culture-language-identity, definitively exists"(Silverstein cultures now ap2003). In short, longer pear less like billiardballs frozenon a fixedtopographic and table and morelikenebulae,intersecting, expanding, acrossspace. contracting To some degree,a reflexive in is sensibility inherent show cultural as Turner's studiesof ritual practices, Victor for (e.g., Turner1982). Hopi ritualclown performances, hold up a mirror Hopi social,episteto example,explicitly and ramological,and moral structures theirunderlying tionales:The questionofwhatit meansto be Hopi is here terms(cf. Whiteley preciselyin reflexive hypothecated 1998b). Moreover, (familiarhistorically, plurilingualism itywithseveral languages)has long been partof theexpesocieties.Torienceof many "traditional," oral-language oftenperceived withdialectdifferences, locallyas gether differentiating (e.g., among the fourHopi diastrongly Second Mesa, and Orayvi), lects:First Mesa, Musangnuvi, of or plurilingualism anyotherexperience languagedifferreence necessarily entailssome degreeof local linguistic reflexivism. Acrossthe lativismand a certaincorollary exceptforthe fictiglobe, was thereever a community, tious Tasaday,that did not have contactwith an Other Was there evera thatspokea different languageordialect? and thatdid not and fusion, community subjectto fission
sciousness .... [Hence] any community-internalabsolute

is or itself now condemnedas reified, naturalized, essenhas tialized.Yet justwhen anthropology decidedto throw miout its sacredcore concept,the world(in particular, both and indigenous culture groups)has embraced nority as idea and forits politicalpurchase.As MarshallSahlins has putit: Thecultural self-consciousness developing among imperivictims one ofthemore is remarkable alism's erstwhile in twentieth cenof history thelater phenomena world or local "Culture"-the itself, some word equivalent, tury. and is on everyone's Tibetans Hawaiians, Ojibway, lips. AusKazakhs Mongols, and native and Kwakiutl, Eskimo, Maori: all and Balinese, Kashmiris, NewZealand tralians, For discover havea "culture." centuries may they they as New Guinean said have noticed But it. now, the hardly we "If to the anthropologist,we didn'thave kastom, would just white men." be like [1993:3] the In a relatedvein, Marilyn Strathern (1995) tracks anthropologicalconcept of culturethrougha ubiquitous a She registers. identifies signifirangeof globaldiscursive cant transformation "declension")of the concept,es(or idea explicitly asdifference"-an peciallywhen "cultural a for sociatedwithanthropology-"provides new platform sense of identity" an essentialist (1995:156) and departs in to rootedness social relations fromits anthropological and become"self-referential totalising" (1995:165). Thus dilutedand extended,the Boasian cultureconcept has become naturalizedin two key places forlanof discourse:(1) the interstices global power guage rights in to in whichresistance the nationstateis framed terms in to ofindigenous and, partly response thatframe; rights, discourseon human rights and (2) in intergovernmental UNESCO's Declaration and development.For the latter, of on Cultural Diversity givesa definition culture quite in withtheanthropological tradition: keeping of [Culture thewholecomplex distinctive is] spiritual, features characthat intellectual emotional and material, It not the terize society social a or group. includes only of the arts letters, alsomodes life, fundamental and but traditions and of valuesystems, being, rights thehuman on ConferenceCultural Policies beliefs. [Intergovernmental Stockholm 1998,quotedin UNESCO forDevelopment 2002:312 as essenceto Theturn "culture" a socially legitimating at as subjectto protection a humanright, some levelresisto to tant and impermeable explanationand, therefore, domination ("it's my culture,only I can understand overtones.While not it")-has taken on quasi-religious quite as Kroeberenvisionedit, culturehas become the A transformation thus has new secularreligion. reflexive old occurredwith anthropology's key concept,growing in out of a globalismand a modernity whichbruteresisform nationalor of tanceis constrained one or another by oriented politically imperialhegemony.A foregrounded, is frombelow, in this context, dediscourseof "culture" sometimesthe only formpermissible. ferred resistance, as Culturehas thustakenon a statusas allegory, Smadar demonstrated Mzeina for Lavie (1990) has convincingly

Whiteley * "Language Rights"and Hopi Queries not engage in any externalmaterialexchange?It seems The experience languagedifference of itself unlikely. produces a reflexive sense of "our language" as opposed to not know how to speak properly. Such sociolinguistic reflexivism its corollary and relativism embeddedin the are sedimented social and cultural historiesof particular a Whorfism. Ungroups: factor neglected strong largely by and Keresan(or Navajo, less,say,Tewa,Tiwa,Towa, Zuni, Western Apache, Havasupai, Paiute, Ute, etc.) are all translation fromand into Hopi must equally "timeless," have been rather since 1700 forthose daunting, especially First Mesa Hopi-Tewahistorically withdiplomatic charged translation Hopi leaders.3 Whorf for If (1956) werestrictly correct about Hopi, imagine,forexample,the confusion of those poor runners 1680, havingtrudged hundred in a milesfrom Zuni withtheirknotted to strings synchronize in Hopi participation the PuebloRevolt:"In fivedaystime when the cock crowsat dawn? Unfortunately, Hopis we can't translate suchconcepts"(cf.Malotki1983). If we may infer thatsome degreeof cultural and linrelativism universal, is this is sharplyheightened guistic with contact and conflict betweenpeoples hitherto unknownto each other.Sudden,severe, extraneous domination may produce reactions-like the Ghost Dance and other redemptive movements-thatdisplay an abruptly in form. But amplified reflexivity perhapsitsmoststriking in such reactions, group'sintentis to changethe world a ratherthan to recognizeits own decentered itself, presence in a pluricultural In reality. the modernsea-change in reflexivization culturalselfwrought globalization, by consciousness and shifts registhe expandsexponentially ter of significance preexisting for culturalperformances. This is especially trueof the moremarked forms symbolic of cultural like and language(cf. difference rituals, dress, Fishman 1994). Such reflexivization cultureand lanof guage, in companywith the politicaldesireforrecognition, reorientsculturalpracticesas now exemplaryin for some regard an ethnonational project.Forexample,in a Hopi kachinaceremony, primary the ritualintentis to produce rain forthe crops; but while the songs remain filledwith the imagery personified of clouds bestowing and nourishment, growth, plenty, manyoftheperformers are no longerengagedin subsistence As horticulture. one elder,famousforhis acerbicoutlook,lamented:"Nowawith author,1981). days it's just playing"(conversation Or, to use Michael Silverstein's terms,it has become a "scheduledemblematic (2003). Symbolic identity-display" of deployment NativeAmerican languagesin public contextsreflects same pattern.When a youngerperson the in a Haida memorialpotlatch4 uttera short to gets up in Haida (a languagethatis functionally speech only spoken by hergrandparents' the generation), metacommunicative message is several.For the assembledelders,she honorstradition; her largely for monolingualcohort,she demonstrates languageresumption posthat is ostensively she a sible;and forall assembled, reflexively proclaims re"yours," even if "you" are scarcely human because you do

715

culturalidentity of surgent againstmore than a century state hegemony.s Similarly, Hopi Kachina dances, transformed into a persignificantly (thoughnot completely) formance local identity, of are, at least forthe younger a world generation, basis of ethnicpridein a pluricultural as a mosaicofinclusions and exclusions. experienced In this world,local asseverations and renunciations stakeallegorical claimsto "difference." Such identity disa plays thus manifest formof culturalcapital and even "distinction" PierreBourdieu's(1984) terms.As resisin are tance, however,"culturaland language rights" typisince the subaltern discourse, cally a deferred may only speak to powerindirectly (Spivak 1988). In this context, of like language,too, becomes an allegory identity, other emblematic cultural (cf. 1998:411).6 displays Silverstein PRIVATE LANGUAGES AND IDEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF RESTORATION Like a religious ritualthatturnsinto an identity-performof ance,7when a languagebecomesthought as detachable fromlocalityand froman assemblageof culturalcodes and practices, turns it intoa denatured In symbolic system. oral societiesespecially,this transformation often confutes formerly primarylinguisticsignifications. Hopis these days are ambivalent and conflicted about the Hopi overwhatto do about languageand collectively perplexed it. OlderHopis aregreatly concerned thatmostofthegenerationbelow the age of 30 neitherspeaks nor understandsmuchofthelanguage.A ThirdMesa friend recently told me, with mixed jocularity and poignancy,about a Dancersat Mesa VerdeNational troupeof Hopi Butterfly Park.As the performers, in theirteens and twenties, all reached a certainpoint of the dance sequence, the appointed "father"(akin to a conductor)called out the standard"ta'dy, huvamndmt6ik.ya'a," whichtranslates pu' to "all right, now turnaroundtogether line (and dance in in the opposite direction)."Seeing no response,he remore emphatically, peated himself becomingratheragitated because fromhis vantage he could see what they could not: thattheywereabout to dance backward overa cliff. Stillno response. as Finally, theynearedthe edge,he resortedto English: "TURN AROUND." This frantically about languagedeclineis parableofloss in Hopi discourse But to the deeplyresonant. proactive attempts restore lanwithmultiple guageare fraught competing ideologicalinterests. NativeAmerican lanHopi, likemanyothersurviving guages, is endangered.The drasticdecline in children's datesprimarily the 1970s."In Mito linguistic competence chael Krauss's (1998) listof fourlanguageclasses,Hopi at on present truly B, belongs thecuspbetween Category "spoken onlyby parental and C, generation up," and Category and up."9 One "spokenby only grandparental generation twenties who grew learning the mayfindHopis in their up oral (i.e., via straightforward translanguagetraditionally mission)and speak it fluently, thoughthese are fewand

716

AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 4 * December 2003 overwhatto do about it. Amongthe generalhelplessness thereis a wide senseof cultural infeyounger generations and some yearning greater for inclusionthat linriority weretheyto have it, would allow. In guisticproficiency, itself factor this the of heightens transformation ritual performances into emblematic sincehereis identity displays, in one of the fewsettings which the youngcan publicly enact a marked cultural At belonging. the same time,the move moreeasilyin thelarger world, younger generations in whose mannersand morestheyare more fluent, and thatprovides sourceofagencyindependent the somea of timesharshjudgments their of elders. oftheoldergeneration Many greet Hopi languageloss it of withfatalism and justify as a fulfillment "prophecy," a wide-ranging in discourse Hopi society Geertz1994). (cf. While some proactive efforts have been made by various overthe last two decades to preserve Hopi constituencies and perpetuate language,local responseshave by no the In exmeansbeen whollyenthusiastic. theearly1980s,for School on ThirdMesa Community ample,Hotevilla-Bacavi of and became independent the Bureauof Indian Affairs to and educationalpolicymandates, forge a its curricular bilingual, bicultural education program.Afterseveral thiscollapsed,in partbecause of its divisiveeffects years, in thecommunity. "Traditionalist" Hopis-descendantsof "Hostiles" who had vigorouslyopposed governmenteducationin the first halfof the 20th centuryenforced the school's teachingof Hopi languageand culopposed at turebecause theseare moreproperly suitedforlearning home and in privateritualcontexts: Indeed,theyimpart counterknowledgethat is held to operateas a resistive weight to the teaching childrenreceive at school. Aland several othertalented thoughrunby a Hopi principal the school was still perceivedas an Hopi intellectuals, alien institution designedforlearningthe "whiteman's who Hopis in the community way."Among"progressive" in are generally favorof school education,some opposed reason:thatitwouldhamtheprogram a counterpoint for in soto perthechildren's ability maneuver thedominant not deem thisability veryimportant, ciety."Progressives" simplybecause it was drummedinto them duringtheir own school experiences but also because it was actively theirown unschooled grandparents, who promotedby werekeenlyawareof theirmarginalized politicalposition in the dominion of the nation-state(cf. Pennycook Islandviews among TorresStrait 1998:84-85, on similar in instance, themid 1990s,MoencopiDay ers).In another School, in an area of the Hopi Reservation perhapsthe most strikingly affected languageloss, also attempted by to introduceHopi language teaching.The school board of (composedentirely Hopis) had reachedthe last hurdle or werefour of approvalwhen someonepointedout there the fiveNavajo children attending school.The possibility thatsome Navajo children mightlearnto speakHopi was thatHopi children as thanthefact perceived a worsethreat wouldnot learnit.The planswerescotched. otherwise

at farbetween.Withoutredressive measures, the present rateof decline,the languagemaybe lostwithina generation or two. Unlike most otherNative Americancases, speech community. Hopi societyhas a large,functioning thus appears eminently possible, Language preservation and, perhaps,the sortof given the rightcircumstances, thathas succeededwithsome Program Master-Apprentice Native languagesin California(Hinton 1998). But effecto tive responses the Hopi languagecrisisdepend on the that of a linguistic ideology, including"rights," adoption mostolderHopis conceiveas alien: an ideologyin which to thelanguageis not integral an embeddedseriesofreligious beliefs,ritual practices,and social and economic and is forms secularizable, but,rather, seen as detachable, Such viewsare anathemato in finereadableand writable. Pueblo,values that Hopi, and moregenerally preexisting as privacy a techniqueof sociopolitiemphasizelinguistic the Preservation Ofcal autonomy. Recently Hopi Cultural that"theHopi lanficesoughtto enacta Tribalordinance guage shall be forthe exclusiveuse of the Hopi people" (Whiteleyn.d.) echoing other formsof culturalprotecof at tionism. Languageis herea register the "intersection as alleand ideology"(Silverstein 2003), and, indexicality on of pracpart gory identity, oftheongoingfight, several of to ticaland discursive fronts, maintainsome form sovereignty. the Throughout late 19thand much of the 20th cenNot until had no languagerights. NativeAmericans tury, Lanthe ratherbelated passage of the NativeAmerican Act guages (PublicLaw 101-477) in 1990 did theyeven notionally receive any such protections.Indigenous landiscoursebut guages were not only absent fromofficial were also an active targetof state elimination.Indian BoardingSchools in the United States and Residential Schoolsin Canada vigorously soughtto stampout Native brutaldisciplinary agregimes, languagesby instituting and forcible of assimilation tactics, commingling gressive Indiansfrom different (e.g.,Adams languagebackgrounds 1995; Lomawaima 1994; Szasz 1974). Hopis experienced late of the fulleffect thesepractices intothe 20thcentury. The But the language continuedto flourish regardless. indeclineis monolingual chiefcause ofrecent television, toin troduced the 1970s,and otheraccelerated pressures wardsmodernity. to mixedfeelings the withvery Hopis have responded against language decline,which is occurring precipitous the backdropof a persistent indigenousculturein other the such as the matrilineal system, ritual kinship respects, calendar,and, to some degree,the subsistence economy. Many eldersblame theirjuniorsforfailingto learn the of languagebut oftenridiculethe haltingefforts some to a do so. Thiscreates doublebindthatmilitates againstany of easy resumption languagelearning(see, e.g., TheHopi 1993:82,on Arizona Tewa). In this Way1995; cf.Kroskrity only gap, the sense is that trueHopi identity generation belongsto the old, and while thereis some despairthat is there seemto be disappearing, Hopi valuesand practices

Whiteley * "Language Rights"and Hopi Queries and historically motivated These politically grounded confront headsociocultural stancesto protect sovereignty on a presumption languagerights of discoursethat open in interchange a public,democratic sphereis the linguistic for basic model of language use. Linguisticinscription formof threat.Hopi educationalpurposesis a particular and a few othersfor has been written missionaries by But morethan a century. the languageremainsfunctionMost fluentHopi speakers(all of whom ally nonliterate. in are literate English)tendnot to thinkof Hopi as a writif resistant ten languageand are skeptical not downright to to attempts writeit. Iftheybelong to a small groupof activeChristians, theymay read hymnsand biblicalpasof sages in a romanizedorthography Hopi. But thereare veryfewothertextsavailablebesidesthe occasional articles in Hopi Tribepublications. Otherwise, bilingual publications,like severalvolumes of oral narratives produced seen at preMalotki(e.g., 1995), are largely by Ekkehart sent as not forHopi consumption, forthe use ofpabut haana (white)linguists, and anthropologists, the like. As in languageprograms local schools (such as the Hopi LiteracyProjectdevisedby Emory Sekaquaptewaof the Uniof in versity Arizona)depend on literacy Hopi, thosewho with writtenHopi are are becoming most comfortable thosewho speakit leastwell. The Hopi Dictionary Project Hill and others theUniversity at of (organized Kenneth by Arizona)was applauded and supportedby many in the ran But community. the dictionary into some majorroadblocks as publicationneared. First, therewas concernit would expose bothlanguageand culture outsideunderto thus abridging culturalsovereignty. Second, it standing, was felt like thatthe dictionary, classroom would teaching, fixthe sounds and meaningsof the Hopi languagein an was concern, form. there And,third, alien,objectified parat ticularly Firstand Second Mesas, that the dictionary the dialectas the standwould effectively privilege Orayvi ard form. The dictionary eventually was published(Hopi Dictionary Project1998), and I thinkwill prove a vitally to resource Hopis forgenerations come. But to important thatis myperspective a pahaana anthropologist. as In perhapsan even morecompelling exampleof lanand mark soveras a techniqueofcultural of privacy guage was a linguistic researcher summarily ejectedfrom eignty, Pueblo a fewyearsago when he was discovered atJemez to inscribe lexiconand grammar Towa (the a of tempting and of Jemez language).As the Pueblogovernor a party reat a ligiousleadersexplained,during presentation ColumLaw School,1o thiswas tantamount herto bia University could theJemezlanguagebe esy:Underno circumstances written down and disseminated Kroskrity 1993:87,on (cf. a similarattitude among some ArizonaTewa). They met with stunnedconsternation the audience of law stuby dents,who, in the garrulous ofNew Yorkand thevercity bose fieldof legal argument, take forgranteda language ideology of secularized democraticutteranceand exchange.That languageideologyis the same one thatunderlies much language rightsdiscourse. But as these

717

Pueblo examples show, particularlocal expressionsof takeon an inverseform here:the right "languagerights" notto let the languagepersist, disseminated, be prebe or sentin official stateor pedagogical settings.
LANGUAGE IDEOLOGIES: LOGOCENTRISM VERSUS PERFORMATIVITY

Pueblo resistance linguistic to inscription points toward an important conclusion:thatlanguagerights discourse is on the logocentrism that emanates fromthe predicated social transition literacy. logocentric A to languageideology altersthe way oral languagesare thoughtabout and used. Reconceptualizing unwritten an languageas, well,a "language,"is ipso factoto resituate manyof its uses and saliencesin a local speech-community. and literWriting Anderson (1991), and acy,as WalterOng (1982), Benedict JackGoody (e.g., 2000) have variouslyobserved, utterly senseof itslanguageand indeedof changea community's itself. Once a community's it languageis literate, becomes difficult imagineit, and imaginewith it, in nonlogoto centric is ways. Literacy thus a primary agent in the reIn the worldsystem, ideologyof flexivization an process. is and on rights decidedly linguistic logocentric dependent nation-state ideas of languageand community Miihl(cf. hausler1996; Pennycook1998). Writing and othertechof nologizations language,such as itsuse on radio,televidevalue language's performative sion, and the Internet, the "magical power of powers and largelydemystify words,"reducinglanguage to symbolswith referential, and rhetorical, aesthetic capacitybut withoutinstrumental force. The sociolinguistic effects be profound. may On movingto New Yorkin the mid-1980s, following an extendedstayon the Hopi reservation,was immediI talkand avoidance of silent atelystruck the pervasive by in gaps in conversation, marked contrastto Hopi or values.ForHopi and Navajo, the ilNavajo sociolinguistic in locutionary capacity(Austin1962) of speech,especially ritual contexts,is axiomatic and conditionsutterance. Wordsmaybe materially or linked dangerous beneficent; with ritualdrama,theymay instrumentalize theyare as In uttered. Navajo cosmogony, example,speech literfor than naming first-created a ally createsthe world (rather materialform)and is used directly controlmaterial to forces and entities. First Man encounters two deityforms who personify and Speech,respectively. Thought Thought and Speech are the parentsof ChangingWoman, a deity
"identifiedwith the Earth . . . and . . . the source and sus-

tenanceof all lifeon the earth'ssurface, controlling parand 1977:17-18). ticularly fertility fecundity" (Witherspoon The animatepowerof speech lies at the heartof Navajo ontologyand conditionsthe verysense of languageand itsuses:
The speech act is the ultimateact of knowledge and and one power,and by speaking properly appropriately can control compelthepower thegods.Thisis the and of and basisofthecompulsive ontological rational powerof speech.[1977:60]

718

AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 4 * December 2003 TheNavajo of world based two view the is on metaphysiand is link determinism, theother an unbreakable between worlds thought speech the of and and worlds of the matter energy. ofthese and Both areconpresuppositions or in tradicteddenied Western [1977:75] metaphysics.
cal premises. One of theseis a willful and pervasive ....

entails semiotic depletion (especially in the realm of valued religious worksagainstsome highly signification), valuesin Nativecommunities. primary linguistic WHOSERIGHTS ARELANGUAGE RIGHTS? While a quasi-anthropological sense of culturehas now its (and, indeed,"self-refcaughton globally, identitarian erential and totalizing") and dislocation from sopurchase cial relations thatreflect back onto anproduceproblems of (see thropological understandings thecultural Strathern no1995:168-170). Under the receivedanthropological distion, especially as modifiedby intergovernmental neutral.Despite overuseand course,cultureis politically uncritical extension(cf.Sahlins2002), Michel frequently Foucault'senduring legacyhas been to showthatany systemic set of discourses and practices anthropologists would termculture saturated is withpower,enablingcertainactionsand actors and inhibiting others. Thissenseof culture seemsnot to have transferred humanrights to discourseor otherglobal and nationalist declensionsof the statements term,exceptby innuendo in briefqualifying Arti(like the finalsentenceof the UNESCO declaration's cle 5 above). If cultureembodiespower,and if language reston cultural then we oughtto attendto rights rights, how languagerights mayoperate-not onlyto extendsocial justicein some spheresbut also to perpetuate social in Insofar languageis theprimary as meinequities others. dium of culture, whileostensibly neutral a code when detached fromselfand community, operationlanguage in too cannot be detachedfrompower.Such operationsof withincultureapplyboth transnationpower-knowledge and internally a commuto ally (includingdiasporically) nity. Forthe former, the case of a married take couple who moved to the Netherlands withinthe last decade from South Africa (and see Stolcke1995). She is Tswana,he is British(both are more cosmopolitanthan these singlelabels allow); she is black,he is white.Both are identity in both inequallyfluent Setswanaand English, speaking in terchangeably the home. In apartheidSouth Africa, as Englishbecame a cosmopolitan languageof liberation, to Afrikaans, languageof oppression. both the For opposed Dutch-as theancestor Afrikaans-is of someindividuals, what overdetermined thisregard, each has sought in but to learnit as thelanguageoftheir newlyadoptedcountry. In the streets Amsterdam, of interlocutors quicklyrecognize the man's haltingDutch and switchto English, the global languagein which most Dutch are fluent.In the Netherlands,as elsewhere, the local-global dialectic aroundEnglishis ambivalent: for Englishis required ease of movement the worldsystem locallyresisted in but for its hegemoniceffects. this context,the man is recogIn nized as a middle-class Briton-notpartof,but posingno to, When,in simixenophobicthreat whiteDutchsociety. larstreet the to a conversation, womantries initiate switch from Dutch to English, the otherhand,the responseis on

on cultural Languageuse is predicated a primary assumption that it may be directly instrumental the material in world. This does not mean that Navajos, or Hopis, go about in fearof utteranceper se. Indeed, in Hopi disis there pervasive course, (often punningand wordplay inwith German, Navajo, Japanese, terlinguistically English, etc.), forwhich the villagersof Musangnuvion Second Mesa are especially famous.Butthesesociolinguistic practicesand theircounterpoints silenceoccurwithinconof understood contexts thatprescribe when cerventionally of tain forms discourse appropriate when theyare are and withwhichpeople not;whentheyarenot,theseriousness treat utterancemay be palpable. Witherspoon'spoint with Westernmetaphysics about the contradiction becomes especiallyrelevant: The conflict betweensociolinthose of the Hopi or Navajo on guisticsensibilities-like and those emerging withglobal rights disthe one hand, morethanmeredifferences courseon theother-concerns oflinguistic ideology. In thetransition literacy, to whereitis and, especially, secularimposedby the state,languageis oftenflattened, relativized: is reducedto a symbolic It ized, and further code largely lackingin constitutive agency,except,again, And where oral languagesnow textualmetaphorically. as ized are subjectedto commodification, in the market circulationof Native imagery,this flattening process reachesits maximum.Forexample,the Hopi signkatsina termwith (cf. Pearlstone 2001) is an important religious ofsignificance. itscirculation tourist But in multiple layers and othernon-Hopidiscourse, and its anglicized transformation to kachinaminimizesits sphereof meaning. In refers the dolls that Hopis to Englishkachinas primarily makeboth forinternal and forsale. This is a reference use thatHopi katsina does not have.Katsinam (thepluralform of the word)refers ancestral to who may manifest spirits, as in themselves rainclouds,as protagonists sacrednarraand as personated actorsin maskedritual dramas.In tives, the market-driven to in dialog thatrefers the dolls (tithu younger Hopis especiallyabsorbsome Hopi) as kachinas, of the reducedsense of the termand indeed need to emwithbuyersof tribal ploy thatsense in theirinteractions art-interlocutors who are typically inonly superficially terestedin Hopi cultural ideas. As an English term, used bybothnon-Hopisand Hopis responding to kachina, has evacuatedofmeaning, and them, thusbeen drastically this process will expand with the decline of the Hopi and the continuing commodification speech community ofHopi artifacts. Under these conditions,a language rightsideology that is metaphysically and legalistically predisposedtowardsa logocentric view of language,thatin and of itself

Whiteley * "Language Rights"and Hopi Queries as not the same: She is usually identified an "asylum ThirdWorldmigrant who has come to esor seeker" other (thoughthis is not in factthe cape oppressionelsewhere case). As in other Western European countries,Third are Worldand Eastern being Europeanmigrants currently in to to assimilate the nationalsociety theNetherpressed to lands. In contrast the reactionto herhusband,thereis an insistencethat she learn to speak Dutch: In fact,her as is in English perceived subversive fluency cosmopolitan For to forcedassimilationand local racialisthierarchy. a her,Englishremains liberating globaltool in the faceof to She thathierarchy. does not insiston any official right thatwould be meaningless this in a speak Setswana, right of So of congeries social forces. the languagerights some, and nation-state itsnesting the Dutch,in theNetherlands become the language withinthe European Community, of such as immigrants color or of disaddutiesof others, In to Europeanorigin. seeking prevantagednonnorthern whicharearguably moreimporserveotherhumanrights, the tant in this contextthan theirlocal languagerights, to a cosmopolitan, transnafor latter mustfight their right of tional statusand its supportby mastery a global language. based or reAs regards operationof linguistically the an comwithin ethnocultural inforced power-knowledge of otherforms inequality maycome intoplay.As munity, treats noted, the discourseof language rightsimplicitly communicative medium.Wherethat languageas a neutral is the combineslanguagewithculture, latter indiscourse senseidentified above. relativist tendedin the apoliticized, In UNESCO'sposition cultural on (UNESCO2002), diversity "culture"is vergingon "couture":consumerist identityBut clothingto don or doffas the mood strikes. what if to one's culture invokethe standard (to challenges relativwitchtorture, inism) includesfemalegenitalmutilation, or Some linwidow burning, human sacrifice? fanticide, cultural forms both reston and articulate guistic practices to senseofhumanrights. antithetical a global-universalist Whorfian agreethat to One does not need to be a strong ideas embeddedin languageand languagepractices help Wherethoseassumpsocialassumptions. shape or reaffirm to tionsentailsignificant rights lininequality, defending reproducesuch structures guisticusage that effectively over another means we favorone kind of human rights and other and some humans over others.The linguistic culturalsecrecythroughwhich the Pueblos have mainof over centuries cotainedsome sovereignty the last four encodes some gender(and lonial presencesimultaneously in Severalterms Pueblo languagesdisother)inequalities. In for is socialranks, example. Tewa,thisdistinction tinguish markedby a term(Patowa)meaning"Made, Completed, or Instituted, Becomepeople" (Ortiz1969:79) as opposed to commoners, to referred by terms (Whe Towa,Nayiwha as Towa) that translate respectively "Weed or Trashpeople" or "Dust-dragging people" (1969:17). As I have argued in (Whiteley1987) forrelatedcategories Hopi, these are but and reproduce not merelyclassificatory both reflect

719

social inequities.Or, again, ifthe Hopi locallyimportant occursin a discursive category powaqa, "witch/sorcerer," of of context accusationand ostracism, does theextension theright identify to and,thus,perlanguagerights protect secutesuchpersons? Should"hatespeech"be protected or out by language rights? And what if one's lanpoliced habitus pervasively distinguage and its sociolinguistic in femaleand privileges former rethe guishesmale from lationto thelatter (see, e.g.,Ide and Hill 1998)? Deciding which rightsare more important-in the last case (to render as a reductio absurdum), it ad thoseof women or those of language-is a Hobson's choice. If,in one regard, globalization, despiteits damage to cultural and linguistic offers of some possibilities greater diversity, we social justice, shouldrefrain from simplistic a equation of linguistic with human rights.European immirights to in grants the UnitedStatesat the Turnof the Century monolinespousedthenation-state's manycaseswillingly social gual language ideologyas a means towardgreater of equality;similarly, many Native Americans an earlier wereconvincedthat learning generation Englishwas the the and for future consciously their onlyhope discouraged childrenfromlearningthe nativetongue.New inequalitiesproduced languageand social changeshouldsound by a noteof cautionaboutanyunproblematized senseoflanare Whose rights they?What group-internal guage rights. consequences may there be? What unintended conselaws embedquences mighttherebe withlanguagerights ded in liberallegal rationalities that,howeverwell-intentioned and orientedtowardsocial justice,are a formof social engineering nonetheless? Christina Paulston(1997) and Alastair these Pennycook(1998) seek to circumvent for or problems arguing "emic"rights "situated by ethics," But is respectively. that evades the issue: Eithera right a human right, under some universally acceptabledefinition of human,or it is not; if we endorsecertainhuman for humansand not forothers, claimsto our rights certain a humanitarian moral philosophyas the baseline of human rights, and theirdependentlanguage rights, seem highly suspect. CONCLUSION of Languagerights subaltern peoplesin theglobalpolitical and itsvarious nationaland diasporic economy expressions aroundlanguageand culture, engagea valuablediscourse are but, as rights, more complex than meetsthe eye. In evaluating the conditions that permit and encourage small-group languagesto surviveand prosper, globalism seemsto be an irresistible forceshapingcurrent language, and ideologies.Literacy, readingand the languagerights, of is bottom-line writing indigenous languages, theprobable for survival,and those other technologizations the of such as radio,television, the Internet, proband are word, ablygoingto be at leastequallyimportant, along withthe classroom and the archive (cf. Silverstein2003). But the sociolinguistic resituate technologizations inevitably

720

AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 4 * December 2003 and transitory reifying such impositions maybe, and howevercontingent conceptual on and historical overdetermination.So, despitea lingering antireferentialist from cant we from depostmodern anthropology, shouldnot shrink as or scribing linguistic culturalstructures objectiveentifor of ties,in order, example,to comparepatterns linguistic persistence and endangerment. This does not entail of naivelyabandoninggenuineproblematics signification, butsuchproblematics shouldnotbe easilypermitted into and its heuristic fruits. Lananalysis capacitateempirical situated,politically guages and culturesare historically But motivated, by underpinned ideologies,and shifting. in describable social space theyare also objectiveforms: and practice, boundedin someregard and (however blurry tentacular), historically persistent and identifiable real time,theyare,in short, things. through
PETERWHITELEY Division ofAnthropology, AmericanMuseum

of with regardto their sensibilities speech-communities or themto a greater lesser extent languagesand deracinate from local and "traditional" and interests; when accompaare and renied by diaspora,the effects both magnified acrossglobalethnoscapes. fracted resiof Whiletheprocess globalization mayinevitably tuate the sense of cultureand language ever more relashould not let it be forgotten that tively,anthropology culturalrealitiesare not mere couture-that is, optional identitarian fashionpieces to put on and discardas one multiculturalist dissees politicallyfit. Contemporary of course of cultureas owned property, which language willbe merely is discourse one species, rights mystificatory if it does not engage both the more pervasive anthropoat logical sense of cultureand its effects all levels (ontohermeneutic, economic,etc.),tological,epistemological, getherwith a Foucauldian sense of its saturationwith cross-culturTypicallanguagepractices powerand history. and dutiesto speak and to hold one's ally includerights tongue,to repress speech,and to expressand perpetuate that social inequities.It is by no means self-evident lanof protections guage rightsguaranteeFirstAmendment and without "free that,anyuniversalist approach speech," or to language rights,even a hedged "situationalist" and actuallycontrabe overly simplistic "emic" one, may The quasi-legaldiscourse lanof to dictory human rights. guage rightsas human rights(see, e.g., Paulston 1997; associationof Varennes2001), and the further strategic withenvironmental contexts thesein somepolitical rights, terrain. premise The thatlinguistic opens on some thorny a rightsare equivalentto human rightsand, therefore, natural assumptions, maymask good based on democratic of and both transnational local instrumentalities internal race,rank,region,and so on. The by oppression gender, as modelofhumanrights appliedto languagesharessome with difficulties its applicationto nature:Ifwe favoraniof the mal rights, does thatmean we preserve right lions to eat zebras?Some animals are more equal than others. some languages, Under an ideologyof language rights, and their socialinstrumentalities, be, too. may like In order persist prosper, to and languages, cultures, essentialwill inevitably become to some extentreified, ized, and objectified theirverysubject-communities. by and ethicalpreferences This goes againstsome analytical sociolin anthropology also againstthe performative and of sensibilities many oral indigenouscommuniinguistic fearof reification, to ties.In respect the former, analytical the and objectification, naturalization, essentialization, in voicingof whichhas become de rigueur much anthromay be excessive.Both in the field pological argument, of and as it is theorized, nature, preethnography, itsvery that are, in important human practices sumes patterned consistentand intersubjectively available (and respects, In under some description. orderto study translatable) such patbut something involving anything, particularly terns,theremust be some sense of its statusas entity, or howeverprovisional process,structure, arrangement,

NY ofNatural New History, York, 10024 NOTES

Acknowledgments. thanksto Sally McLendonforinviting Many in as myparticipation the 2001 AAAsessionon language rights, a of Monica Heller, discussant papers Joseph Jonathan Errington, by as King, and Michael Silverstein, well as for encouragement the throughout publication process.All fourof thosepaperssigin influenced thinking thisarticle.Comments my by nificantly WilliamMaurer, and Susan Arnold and FranMascia-Lees Krupat, Lees have proven in and particularly helpful rethinking rewriting, for althoughI remainsolelyresponsible the finaloutcome.Fieldat work Hopi overthepasttwodecadeshas been supported sevby eral institutions individuals and 1998). I am also (see Whiteley mostgrateful MichaelNovacek, to and MuProvost, theAmerican seumof Natural for and otherfunds that History a start-up grant visits Hopi and to Haida Gwaii. allowedrecent to 1. Linguistic is for relativism a partial foundation languagerights discourse 2001; Krauss1996),but ifthatpredicates (e.g., Corbett it and value differences, seems paradoxicalthat lanperceptual should be upheld by a logocentric, fundamentally guage rights in ("Standard SAE-based Average European" Whorf's terminology) language ideology. 2. While not strictly odd Boasian, this definition-a slightly melangeof Tylor("wholecomplex"for"complexwhole"),Boas, witha little New Ageand humanrights and Benedict, Kluckhohn, thrown in-clearlyechoesreceived anthropological thought. 3. Hopi-Tewa intothepresent. Indeed,in plurilingualism persists some cases, Hopi-Tewas, perhapsbecause of an ethnoculturally 1993), have a foregrounded emphasison language(see Kroskrity of thatexceedsthatofHopisofthe knowledge the Hopi language samegeneration. a 4. Like the Haida language,the Haida potlatchis itself resurdecadesofgovernment rected cultural form repression. following in to hereon an eventI was privileged attend Old 5. I am drawing in 2003. HaidaGwaii(theQueenCharlotte Massett, Islands), March 6. Allegorical claimsmayhavematerial sociopolitical implications social movements, and may be the basis fortransformative too, diswheremajoritarian statist however, legal and human rights disenbackbylinguistically and courses appropriated projected are minorities argue for sovereign to franchized rights againstthe on state.This is occurring Haida Gwaii,forexample,wherethe of is momentum cultural renaissance combinedwitha resurgent and the land claimagainst Canadiangovernment, with indigenist of other expressions political sovereignty. 7. Forthissection intend term I the a slightly sociolinguistically-as ironic the (1958)against possibility argument playon Wittgenstein's

Whiteley * "Language Rights"and Hopi Queries

thattherecan be mentally Withsome exceplanguages. private tions (see Das 1998), Wittgenstein's crucialimportance a phito the losophyof ethnographic explanation-especially vis-a-vis inof of tersubjectivitylinguistic meaningand thedefeat solipsismis now overlooked. myview,recently In morepopularrecursions ofliterary criticism continental and are poorer philosophy far epismodels fora discipline(ethnography) temological prediutterly catedupon the reality patterned of humanpractices, intersubjecand (cf. 1998a). tivity, linguistic intertranslatabilityWhiteley 8. The situationemerging with Navajo is similar(e.g., Krauss in 1998:15; House 2002), although, my own experience, Navajo less thanHopi. appears endangered 9. Krauss too in (1998:14)is unfortunately optimistic placingHopi in his Category (i.e., "stillspokenby all generations A including youngchildren"). 10. Theyhad traveled New Yorkto repatriate to somewarshields from Brooklyn the Museum.

721

CITED REFERENCES
DavidW. Adams, 1995 Education Extinction: for American Indians theBoarding and School 1875-1928. Lawrence: Press Experience, University ofKansas. American Association Anthropological 2000 Statement Language on 1996, Rights (adoptedJanuary updated 2000). Benedict Anderson, 1991 Imagined Communities: Reflections theOrigins on and of New Verso. Spread Nationalism. York: Arjun Appadurai, 1996 Modernity Large: at Cultural Dimensions Globalization. of of Press. Minneapolis: UniversityMinnesota Austin, John Langshaw 1962 HowtoDo Things with Words. MA: Cambridge, Harvard Press. University HomiK. Bhabha, 1994 TheLocation Culture. York: of New Routledge. Pierre Bourdieu, A of of Taste. 1984[1979] Distinction:Social Critique theJudgment Richard trans. MA: Press. Nice, Cambridge, Harvard University H. Chen,Albert Y. 1998 ThePhilosophy Language of Sciences Rights. Language 20(1):45-54. Clifford, James 1997 Routes: Travel Translation theLate and in Twentieth CenMA: Press. tury. Cambridge, Harvard University Greville G. Corbett, 2001 Why Need In Linguists Languages. On Biocultural Diversity: and Luisa Linking Language, Knowledge, theEnvironment. ed. DC: Institution Maffi, Pp.82-94.Washington, Smithsonian Press. Das, Veena 1998 Wittgenstein Anthropology. and Annual Review Anthroof 27:171-195. pology A. Fishman, Joshua 1994 On theLimits Ethnolinguistic of In Democracy. Linguistic HumanRights: Discrimination. Tove Overcoming Linguistic and eds. Skuttnab-Kangas Robert Phillipson, Pp.49-62.New York: Mouton Gruyter. de Armin Geertz, 1994 TheInvention Prophecy: of and in Continuity Meaning of Press. HopiIndian Religion. Berkeley: UniversityCalifornia R. Jack Goody, 2000 ThePower theWritten of Tradition. DC: Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press. E. Hamel,Rainer 1997 Language Conflict Language and Shift: Sociolinguistic A Framework Linguistic for HumanRights. of Journal International theSociology Language of 127:105-134. Leanne Hinton, 1998 Language andRevitalizationCalifornia: Loss in Overview. Inofthe of 132:83-93. ternationalJournal Sociology Language Hopi Dictionary Project 1998 HopiDictionary-Hopiikwa AHopi-English Lavdiytutuveni: of MesaDialect. Bureau Applied of Research Dictionary theThird

inAnthropology, of Tucson: UniverUniversityArizona, comp. of Press. sity Arizona The HopiWay 1995 DavidWason, 56 minutes. film dir. BBC Worlds" se("Other Manchester: Film. BBC ries). House,Deborah 2002 Language Shift the Politics Culand among Navajos: Identity tural of Press. Continuity. UniversityArizona Tucson: and Hill, Ide,Sachiko, Beverly eds. 1998 Women's in Parts theWorld. of InternaLanguages Various of of tionalJournaltheSociology Language 129. Michael Krauss, 1996 Status Native of American StabiLanguage Endangerment.In GinaCantoni, Flagstaff: ed. Northlizing Indigenous Languages. ernArizona Center Excellence Education for in University Series. Monograph 1998 TheCondition Native of North American The Languages: Needfor Realistic Assessment Action. and InternationalJournal oftheSociology Language of 132:9-21. Paul Kroskrity, 1993 Language, and Studies of History, Identity: Ethnolinguistic theArizona Tewa. Tucson: of Press. UniversityArizona Smadar Lavie, 1990 ThePoetics Military of Mzeina of Occupation: Allegories BedouinIdentity under Israeli Egyptian Berkeley: and Rule. Univerof Press. sity California Claude Levi-Strauss, 1963[1949] TheSorcerer hisMagic. Structural and In AnthropolC. and trans. 167-185. New ogy. Jacobson B.G. Schoepf, Pp. York: Basic Books. Tsianina Lomawaima, 1994 They CalledItPrairie The of Indian Light: Story Chilocco School. Lincoln: of Press. UniversityNebraska eds. Lowe,Lisa,and DavidLloyd, 1998 ThePolitics Culture theShadow Capital. of in of Durham, NC:DukeUniversity Press. Ekkehart Malotki, 1983 HopiTime: Linguistic A of Analysis theTemporal Concepts intheHopiLanguage. Berlin: Mouton. ed. Malotki, Ekkehart, 1995 TheBedbugs' DanceandOther Tales/MuNight HopiSexual Tuutuwutsi. Lincoln: of muspi'yyungqa UniversityNebraska Press. Peter Mtihlhausler, 1996 Linguistic and Ecology: Language Change Linguistic Imperialism thePacific in NewYork: Region. Routledge. Ong,WalterJ. 1982 Orality Literacy: Technologizing theWord. and The of New York: Methuen. Alfonso Ortiz, 1969 TheTewaWorld: and in Time, Space, Being Becoming a Pueblo of Press. Society. Chicago: UniversityChicago Christina Bratt Paulston, 1997 Language Policies Language and Annual Review of Rights. 26:73-85. Anthropology Pearlstone, Zena,ed. 2001 HopiKatsina: Commodified Appropriated and of Images Los Fowler Museum Cultural of HisHopiSupernaturals. Angeles: UCLA. tory, Alastair Pennycook, 1998 TheRight Language: to Towards Situated a Ethics Lanof Possibilities. Sciences guage 20(1):73-87. Language and Robert, ToveSkuttnab-Kangas Phillipson, 1995 Linguistic and Rights Wrongs. 16(4): Applied Linguistics 483-504. Naz Rassool, 1998 Postmodernity, Cultural Pluralism theNation-State: and Problems Language of HumanRights, and Rights, Identity Power. Sciences 20(1):89-99. Language Marshall Sahlins, 1993 Goodbye Tristes to in of Tropes: EthnographytheContext Modern World of Journal Modern 65:1-25. History. History 2002 Waiting Foucault, Chicago: for Still. Press. Prickly Paradigm Michael Silverstein, 1998 Contemporary Transformations ofLocalLinguistic Communities. Annual Review Anthropology of 27:401-426.

722

AmericanAnthropologist * Vol. 105, No. 4 * December 2003

UNESCO Plural 2002 Cultural Common Identities. Diversity: Heritage, Paris: UNESCO. Fernand de Varennes, MOST 2001 Language as Part Rights. Rights an Integral ofHuman on 3:1. Societies Journal Multicultural (UNESCO) Peter Whiteley, A MAN 1987 TheInterpretation ofPolitics: HopiConundrum. (n.s.)22:696-714. In The of 1998a Introduction: PredicamentHopiEthnography.ReDC: thinking Ethnography. 1-48.Washington, SmithHopi Pp. sonian Institution Press. In of American 1998b Native Philosophy. Routledge Encyclopedia vol. ed. Routledge: Philosophy, 6. Edward Craig, Pp.662-672. NewYork. 1996.Unpublished MS. n.d. Fieldnotes, Lee Whorf, Benjamin In Indian ModeloftheUniverse. Lan1956[1950] AnAmerican Lee and Selected of Writings Benjamin Thought, Reality: guage, MA: B. ed. Whorf.JohnCarroll, Pp.57-64.Cambridge, MITPress. Gary Witherspoon, Ann Uni1977 Language Art theNavajoUniverse. Arbor: and in of Press. versity Michigan Wittgenstein, Ludwig Macmillan. New 1958 Philosophical Investigations. York:

and 2003 TheWheres Whens-as Wellas Hows--ofEthnolinguisPublic Culture ticRecognition. (November 2003). eds. Tove, Phillipson, Skuttnab-Kangas, and Robert Discrimi1994 Linguistic HumanRights: Overcoming Linguistic Mouton Gruyter. de nation. NewYork: and to 2000 Rights Language: Mahwah, Power, Education. Equity, Erlbaum. NJ: C. Spivak, Gayatri In and 1988 CantheSubaltern Speak? Marxism theInterpretation eds. ofCulture. Nelson L. Grossberg, Pp.271-313.Urbana: C. and of Press. UniversityIllinois Verena Stolcke, of New New Culture: Boundaries, Rhetorics Exclu1995 Talking sioninEurope. Current 36(1):1-24. Anthropology Strathern, Marilyn Is Has about Culture ThatEveryone It.In 1995 TheNiceThing inAnthropological KnowlTransformations Contexts: Shifting NewYork: ed. M. Routledge. edge. Strathern, Pp.153-176. Szasz,Margaret Indian:The Roadto Self1974 Educationand theAmerican of 1928-1973. Determination, UniversityNew Albuquerque: Mexico Press. W. Victor Turner, New Seriousness Play. of The Ritual Theatre: Human to 1982 From Publications. York: ArtsJournal Performing