The concept of
(dis)citizenship, though unheard of prior to this reading, was intriguing to me
as soon as I read it in the title. This introductory chapter by Ramanathan
(2013) presents the central focus of the book, the need to challenge and change
the idea of citizenship as well as provides overviews of the chapters to come.
Each chapter addresses the relationship between policies and (dis)citizenship and
offer accounts of localized (dis)citizenship. Ramanathan argues that
citizenship needs to be “understood in terms of what it allows one to do, and
where it is viewed as a process amidst tensions, fluid contexts and diverse
meanings” (p. 1). A different picture of citizenship emerges when taking into
account different histories and languages. This requires opening ourselves up
to the possibility of a more historicized understanding of our places in the
world, and considering how language policies serve to create barriers and
exclude.
In order to support and further this
argument, Ramanathan focuses on the need to consider translations, histories
and our language of difference in particular when considering any and all
contexts regarding (dis)citizenship. Translations of ourselves or others, will
rest forever “in-between” in that it inhabits the gap between the language,
culture and history that is translated and the language, culture and history
that does the translating. Ramanathan highlights, through discussion of her
choice to omit a text example in her previous book, the complexities and issues
surrounding elaboration and translation. If it is unlikely to fully translate a
language, culture or history, what information is most important? Where do we
begin and how much information should be provided? A stronger understanding of
(dis)citizenship, that is, what currently hinders fuller participation “can
only emerge if we unabashedly usher in history into applied linguistics, and
view each person speaking an ‘alien tongue’ as a historicized being, bringing
to each encounter their individual connections to their past” (p. 8). It is
important to respect difference and also appreciate/acknolwedge its relevance.
I believe the
greatest strength of this reading (and the book) is to contemplate a broader
idea of what citizenship means and in following that definition, who has been
excluded. As discussed in seminar Tuesday evening, citizenship is a modern-day
concept and its definition is often times associated primarily with holding a
passport. In reality, holding a passport, or saying that you are a citizen of a
certain country does not automatically afford you any real rights to
participation. This argument also challenges the notion that every person who
is seen as a “citizen” inhabits the same rights and opportunities to
participate.
Though I found it to
be an interesting choice to only include female contributors, rationalized by
the idea that women as a group have traditionally been excluded from civic
participation and have experienced (dis)citizenship, I cannot help but see this
choice as an overall weakness of the book. Certainly I can appreciate the value
that women bring to this conversation but believe it is unfair to paint the
picture that women know (dis)citizenship “better” than men. I read the
justification for only have female contributors as almost a quantification of
how some people have been marginalized more or less in citizenship terms –
women being more and men less – which I do not think can be said fairly or
accurately.
The primary question
that comes to mind after reading this chapter is what does it mean to “fully
participate” (according to Ramanathan)? I think it would have been beneficial
to include concrete examples of “participation” in order to provide a clearer
picture for the reader. The “usefulness” of this reading in my own practice as
a secondary school teacher lies in how I choose to incorporate the concept and
discussion surrounding citizenship. The term “citizenship” comes up rather
frequently in curriculum documents yet without broadening our definition of
citizenship or questioning our current representation of what it means to be a
citizen, we will simply continue to perpetuate this simplistic notion of
citizenship that is currently presented. It is possible that some of our
students (and/or their parents) experience (dis)citizenship already in their
lives and acting/teaching as if all citizens hold the same rights to
participation would be exclusionary and misinformed.
Ramanathan, V. (Ed.) (2013). Language
policies and (dis)citizenship. Bristol, UK:
Multilingual Matters Publishing.
Post by: Rebeka Lee
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.