Reading notes on Language Policies and (Dis)Citizenship: Rights, Access, Pedagogies by Vaidehi Ramanathan

After reading the articles that were assigned for class 4, there was one that stood out, one that I felt I could understand and relate to the most. The article that I chose was by Vaidehi Ramanathan and is titled Language policies and (Dis)Citizenship: Rights, Access, Pedagogies.

When looking at this article there are a couple of things that should be highlighted, especially about the concept of citizenship. The main argument that I see contained is that citizenship should be looked at as “being able to participate fully”. It should not be looked at as something that is acquired or about the passport one holds or the status of someone’s immigration or visa. The author (Ramanathan) argues that citizenship should be understood differently than normal, it should not be a goal that is attainable, it should be looked at in terms of what it allows someone to do, which means looking at contexts of (dis)citizenship.   

Throughout the article Ramanathan shows different types of evidence to show that citizenship should be looked at as being able to participate fully. I felt that the most powerful way this was done was the examples of (dis)citizenship shown by the other authors in the overview of the chapters. Makoni shows us that even though females are looked at as citizens, they still need to struggle for rights because of traditional norms of African patriarchy. She argues that using the women’s language of respect puts women in compromising positions and that the roles of language policies are important.  Feuerherm talks about “policy concerns around refugee resettlements and the need for agentive voices in applied linguistics research regarding communal transformation”. She discusses two Iraqi women who should be treated as citizens, but face discrimination because of their hijabs, and have difficulties in the English working world. She wants us to look at what we can change in existing policies to improve conditions for resettlement. McCarty goes on to talk about being a citizen in Native America and the concerns about sovereignty in their context. She shows that even though they are “citizens”, the federal education policies “have constructed a social, psychological and pedagogical space designed to domesticate Native American cultural difference using language as a mechanism of social control”.

Looking now at the strengths and weaknesses of this article, I believe that it’s strength and weakness are one in the same. I feel that one of it’s major strengths is that the volume consists of women scholars which makes sense because they do have an idea of (dis)citizenship and a historical understanding of what it means to not be able to participate fully. The weakness comes in because as we all know, women are not the only ones who have an understanding of (dis)citizenship. Why couldn’t Ramanathan have also included a man's perspective of not being able to participate fully for whatever the reason, and potentially give a different view of (dis)citizenship?

I think that the article could be very useful for teachers. Though it may not be on such a large scale, just having teachers think about citizenship in terms of being able to fully participate is important. It may have them rethinking language, or activities used in class that may marginalize certain students; whether it be based on sex, sexual orientation, country of origin or race, thinking in terms of everyone being able to participate fully would make for a better classroom.