Language Activism

Front matter

DE GRUYTER MOUTON

Haley De Korne MINORITY LANGUAGE ADVOCACY

IMAGINARIES AND STRATEGIES OF LINGUISTIC EQUALITY FROM BELOW

Chapter 2

Are all ways of communicating equal? Imaginaries of linguistic equality — 3

Advocating for what? Approaches to ‘language’ — 7 Advocating how? Approaches to equality and social change — 11

Overview of book — 22

Context and conduct of this study —— 25

The moving target of activism: Changing language ecologies in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec — 29

2.1

2.2

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

Chapter 3 Indigenous multilingualisms: Pre-colonial language ecologies — 32

From languages to dialectos: Colonial language

ecologies —— 37

Castellanizacion: Nationalist language ecologies — 38 Neoliberal ‘multicultural’ language ecologies — 40 Traditions of Indigenous language activism —— 42 On-going change in the language ecology — 44

Summary: Activism characteristics in changing times — 52

Creating knowledge and resources: Strategies in scholarship — 56

Scholarly engagement with minoritized languages — 62 Working as a scholar-activist across multiple disciplines — 68 Methodological choices in support of language equality — 70 Scholar-activist strategies in the Isthmus —— 75

Creating resources — 75

Representing communication practices — 78

X — Contents

3.2.3 Connecting people, spaces and resources — 81 3.3 Summary: Characteristics of scholar activism —— 83 Chapter 4

Connecting community and school spaces: Strategies in primary and secondary education — 86

4.1 Language (in)equality and education — 90

4.1.1 Pro-diversity education: From strict immersion to plurilingual repertoires — 91

4.2 Language and schooling in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec — 94

4.3.1 Connecting school and community — 99

4.3.2 Representing Diidxaza as a part of formal education — 103

4.4 Summary: Characteristics of language activism in education — 105

Chapter 5 Representing legitimate languages and identities: Strategies in higher education — 109

5.1 Multilingualism and identities in the Isthmus —— 112 5.2 Language activism in the Tehuantepec Faculty of Languages —— 117 5.2.1 Representing legitimate languages and multilingual identities — 120 5.2.2 Creating Isthmus Zapotec teachers — 126 5.3 Summary: Characteristics of higher education activism —— 132 Chapter 6

Imagining convivial multilingual literacies: Strategies in community-based education —— 137

6.1 Indigenous literacies and community-based education — 140

6.2 Isthmus Zapotec literacies — 142

6.3.1 Our alphabet: Sharing sounds and symbols — 148

6.3.2 We have a unique way to name the world: Diidxaza in the canon of universal literature — 152

6.3.3 Convivencia in the Camino de la Iguana — 158

6.4 Summary: Characteristics of community-based education activism — 161

Contents —— XI

Chapter 7

Imagining future traditions: Strategies in popular culture spaces — 165

Z4 Negotiating social meanings through popular culture activism —— 167

7.2.1 Wake up! Hip-hop events and representations —— 170

7.2.2 The granddaughters of the Binnigula'za: Feminist events and representations — 174

7.2.3 Creating virtual resources and spaces of negotiation —— 178

7.3 Summary: Characteristics of popular culture activism —— 184

Chapter 8

Developing a repertoire of activism strategies — 188

8.1.1 Strategic creating — 194

8.1.2 Strategic connecting — 196

8.1.3 Strategic representing — 198

8.1.4 Characteristics across scales and activist positionality — 199

8.2.1 Diidxazá as a deictic — 205

8.2.2 ‘A grain of sand’ theory of change — 208

8.3 Summary: Convivial language activism —— 211

Appendix A: Language activism strategy framework —— 215 Appendix B: Transcription conventions —— 217

Appendix C: Glossary of common abbreviations, Diidxazá, and Spanish terms — 219

Index — 241

List of Figures

Figure1 Actions and goals of language activism strategies —— 19

Figure 2 Characteristics of language activism strategies —— 20

Figure 3 The country of Mexico, highlighting the state of Oaxaca and the city of Juchitan —— 33

Figure 4 Map of Indigenous languages of Oaxaca — 34

Figure5 Geographic representation of Isthmus Zapotec use across the Isthmus —— 46 Figure 6 Geographic representation of Istmus Zapotec dialects —— 48

Figure7 Sign displayed at the three main entrances to Juchitán —— 49

Figure8 Centro de desarrollo infantil “Ba’du-huini” (Child development center “little child”), Juchitán —— 50

Figure9 — Yu'Du' Lidxi Diuxi (Church (sacred house) Home of God), La Ventosa —— 51

Figure10 Shunco (Sweetheart, little one), San Blas Atempa —— 51

Figure 11 PowerPoint slide from primary school initiative —— 86 Figure 12 Pedagogical materials created by secondary school students —— 105 Figure 13 ‘Aveces quisiera apantallar que se hablar zapoteco . . .* meme —— 115

Figure 14 Ximena Léon Fernández distributing flyers in a public park in Juchitán to promote UABJO courses —— 124

Figure 15 Students and teachers sharing a meal at the end of the semester —— 129

Figure 16 Camino de la Iguana poster 2014 (left); The Juchitán-based publication Guchachi’ Reza 1982 (right) —— 138

Figure 17 Poster commemorating the 60th anniversary of the creation of the popular alphabet —— 144

Figure18 Víctor teaching in the Camino de la Iguana —— 152

Figure 19 Natalia teaching in the Camino de la Iguana —— 156

Figure 20 Natalia and Víctor during a closing convivio —— 159

Figure 21 Poster for the ‘1st Festival of Female Artists in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec *Gunaa Ruzaani”” 3-5 April 2018 —— 175

Figure 22 Meme from the page Memes Idiomas UABJO —— 183

Figure 23 Lenia Toledo Rasgado and Reyna López López preparing a celebration for the end of their workshops in La Ventosa —— 191

8 Open Access. O 2021 Haley De Korne, published by De Gruyter. [CJ EXIT] This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501511561-204

List of Tables

Table1 Key language activism strategies among scholars in the Isthmus —— 83

Table 2 Formal education institutions available to students in the Isthmus and Indigenous language inclusion —— 95

Table 3 Key language activism strateges in primary and secondary schooling —— 108

Table 4 Key language activism strategies in higher education in the Isthmus —— 133

Table5 Key language activism strategies in a community-based literacy workshop —— 162

Table 6 Key language activism strategies in popular culture initiatives —— 185

Table7 Examples of language activism strategies with contrasting characteristics —— 200

8 Open Access. O 2021 Haley De Korne, published by De Gruyter. [CJ EXIT] This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501511561-205

Chapter 1 Advocating for linguistic equality

Para mi es importantisimo difundirlo [zapoteco]. Pero siento que el gran error ha sido--- el gran error antes era enseñar español y se perdió el zapoteco. Y ahora el gran esfuerzo es rescatar el zapoteco. Pero el gran error está en querer forzar a las personas a hablar zapoteco. Ya no puedes recurrir a la barbarie de antes obviamente. Pero entonces ahora, ¿cómo le haces? Hasta que no crees una conciencia real en las personas, no va a haber eso.

For me it's extremely important to spread [Zapotec]. But I feel that the big mistake has been- The big mistake before was to teach Spanish, and Zapotec was lost. And now the big effort is to rescue Zapotec. But the big mistake is in wanting to force people to speak Zapotec. You can't return to the barbarity of before obviously. So now, how do you do it? Until you create a real awareness in people, it won't happen.’

(Mayoli García, Interview May 2014)

Language is one of the domains of social life where inequalities are pervasive; consequently, it is also a point of focus for those in pursuit of social justice and change. The kind of change which social actors envisage varies, however, and ideas about how positive change may be achieved are likewise diverse and sometimes in conflict. As the above comment by Mayoli Garcia,” a student of Isthmus Zapotec language in Oaxaca, Mexico, notes, the obligatory teaching of one language (in this case Spanish) led to the displacement of Indigenous languages of Mexico such as Zapotec. She argues that current efforts to achieve a more equal status for Zapotec should not follow the same forceful approach to changing language practices, but should rather focus on creating awareness about this issue. Her concern about how to be an effective advocate for Zapotec, creating a positive change in the unequal, minoritized status of the language and the people who speak it, is also the driving question of this book. How to bring about positive social change in relation to language? Who participates, what kinds of change do they imagine, and what actions do they take?

As conceptualized in this book, language activism is a social project that aims to counter language-related inequalities, and may encompass many different actors, imaginaries, and actions. I view various forms of activism, advocacy, promotion and stance-taking as part of the same larger political project to resist inequalities and/ or imagine new avenues towards linguistic equality. The social

1 All translations are mine. Please see appendix B on transcription, citation, and date conventions. 2 I use a mixture of pseudonyms and real names in this study, following individual preferences.

8 Open Access. O 2021 Haley De Korne, published by De Gruyter. [| (c) EXIT] This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501511561-001 positioning of actors and the level and kind of activism they engage in vary widely; some social actors contributing to this project identify as language activists, advocates or promoters to various degrees, such as Mayoli. There are also many actors who identify neither as activists nor as language professionals, yet it is useful to consider their imaginaries and actions as part of this broader social domain, as will be examined in the chapters that follow. Language activism does not target language alone; rather its targets can include any of the many inequalities in which linguistic discrimination plays a role, including economic, political, gender, class and racialized forms of marginalization. The positioning of actors as members or non-members of minoritized language communities is complex, as is the positioning of actors as insiders or outsiders of certain social domains, such as public education. Rather than accept a simplifying distinction between community-insider activists and community-outsider advocates, or disruptive activists and system-internal advocates, I examine how actors participate in fluid forms of activism, advocacy, and language politics across multiple communities of practice. By adopting a broad understanding of language activism and advocacy in relation to who participates, the social coalitions that they participate in, and what actions can contribute to increasing linguistic equality, I aim to provide a fuller picture of the power dynamics of linguistic inequality and potential networks of support.

This book will tell the stories of a few of the language activists engaged in resisting the inequalities experienced by members of the Isthmus Zapotec language community. Isthmus Zapotec is an Indigenous language spoken primarily in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Oaxaca, Mexico, hereafter also referred to interchangeably by the auto-denomination Diidxaza and the common simplification Zapotec/ Zapoteco.? These stories provide insight into the imaginaries and strategies of language activism initiatives across several social domains, including academic research, public schooling, higher education, community education, and popular culture. Minority language activism can occur in many social domains and can be initiated from official political spaces, often called top-down initiatives, as well as personal, communal, and informal spaces, often called bottom-up initiatives. This is not a smooth nor linear process; positive linguistic change

3 There are four branches of the Zapotec language family, with a debated number of language variants which are not mutually intelligible (Pérez Baez and Kaufman 2016). Many of these languages are locally called simply Zapoteco/ Zapotec. The terms Zapotec and Zapoteco in this book refer only to the Isthmus Zapotec variant; where other variants are mentioned this is explicitly indicated. At the time of writing this book there are on-going discussions about spelling norms for Isthmus Zapotec. I use the spelling ‘Diidxaza’, which is the spelling used by the 1956 popular alphabet and the accepted standard in use during my fieldwork.

1.1 Are all ways of communicating equal? Imaginaries of linguistic equality —— 3 holds different meanings or imaginaries for different actors from local to global levels, and is often a topic of intense debate. This book focuses primarily on language activism and advocacy at the local level, drawing attention to how diverse social actors imagine and enact strategies which aim to contest linguistic inequalities in a specific place and time. Through ethnographic description and analysis of multiple language activism initiatives, I sketch a repertoire of language activism strategies and aim to provide greater understanding of language activism as a negotiated social project which may inform and encourage activists, scholars, and educators working for change in other contexts of linguistic diversity and inequality.

1.1 Are all ways of communicating equal? Imaginaries of linguistic equality

Diversity is an inherent feature of the phenomenon of language. The range of linguistic families in the world, numerous dialects and registers within each community, and the variation of communication practices among different actors and contexts, and over time, are all part of the immense variation within human communication (Blommaert 2010). The Isthmus Zapotec language is no exception, as a part of the larger Zapotec language family which contains extensive variation and is spoken alongside other Indigenous languages and Spanish in southern Mexico (Pérez Baez and Kaufman 2016). These different ways of communicating are considered to be of equal value by linguists, who point out that each social group achieves their communication needs through a unique combination of features, including linguistic features (such as sounds, structures, and styles) as well as visual features (such as gestures and images). Diverse ways of communicating are of equal social value in that they are equally capable of fulfilling communicative functions within their unique time and place.

The equality of communication practices from this scholarly perspective quickly shifts when viewed from a socially, historically, and politically specific perspective, however. Humans- from social groups and scholarly disciplines to institutions and governments- have created a variety of ways of categorizing and valuing different language practices, so that language diversity is not neutral in most interactions, but is often deployed in the creation of power and hierarchy. Inherent diversity in sound, style, and so forth, is used to create social distinction and often social hierarchies (Bourdieu 1984; Agha 2007). In this sense, minority language should not be understood as an objective label relating to a low number of speakers or reduced territory, but rather a socio-political condition defined by a lower or minoritized status relative to other languages and subject to constant negotiation and shift. As discussed further in chapter two, in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Indigenous language speakers are often considered to have a lower social status than speakers of Spanish, with Indigenous languages typically being referred to as dialectos, popularly understood to be a rudimentary form of speech which is lesser-than-language. Many Indigenous languages around the world have been minoritized through similar processes of colonization and discrimination. Likewise a (minoritized) speech community, as explored in this volume, is neither a fixed nor homogenous entity, but refers to a social group whose members engage in shared meaning-making practices. Rather than being separate and contained, language or speech communities are often understood and defined in relation to other groups (Morgan 2004). Hierarchies also exist within speech communities, often among speakers of different varieties, generations, genders or social classes. For example, young adult speakers of Isthmus Zapotec are sometimes mocked by older speakers, as discussed in chapter 5. The social construction and negotiation of endangered or marginalized language communities is especially complex as these communities are often (re)defining themselves under conditions of discrimination and material inequality (Kroskrity 2014). Social difference and discrimination may be based on any feature of communication, and occur within as well as between speech communities.

This tendency to minoritize in contexts of language diversity has long posed a challenge for scholars and members of multilingual speech communities; as Haugen (1973) wrote, “language is not a problem unless it is used as a basis for discrimination, but it has in fact been so used as far back as we have records” (54). The role that language plays in the creation and reinforcement of social inequality may be subtle and overlooked, yet can lead to important social consequences. Within educational contexts, children from minoritized speech communities are often disadvantaged and evaluated poorly on the basis of their linguistic abilities, regardless of their content knowledge and general capacities (Heller and Martin- Jones 2001). Many residents of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, or Istmeños, recount their negative experiences being punished and silenced in Spanish-only schooling (see chapters 2 and 4). The impacts of linguistic inequality are felt in many other areas of social life as well, from the legal and health systems to the employment market. With this in mind, Ingrid Piller has argued that “addressing linguistic disadvantage must be a central facet of the social justice agenda of our time” (2016: 6).

The notion that humans should not be disadvantaged on the basis of the language or dialect they speak was part of the broader ideology of human rights which received widespread acknowledgement in certain social and political circles following World War II. An influential position paper published by the

1.1 Are all ways of communicating equal? Imaginaries of linguistic equality —— 5 education branch of the United Nations, UNESCO, in 1953, promoted the use of vernacular or mother-tongue education for children from minoritized communities, contrasting with the prevalent trend of educating children in majority, national languages only (UNESCO 1953). This position has been reinforced through numerous other declarations and policies at international and national levels, such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations 2007) and the Mexican national Law on the Linguistic Rights of Indigenous People (Ley General de Derechos Lingúísticos de Los Pueblos Indígenas 2003). Linguistic rights have become closely intertwined with discourses and initiatives promoting human rights and social justice in many parts of the world (Skutnabb-Kangas and Phillipson 1994). New forms of language activism on the international scale continue to emerge, such as the UN declaring 2019 as the year of Indigenous languages.*

Linguistic equality has therefore come to be an established ideal in many social domains, in addition to being a fundamental notion within linguistic science, although it is far from being achieved in social relations. In this sense, linguistic equality is a social imaginary rather than a social reality. The fact that numerous people share an orientation in favor of a pluralist (and plurilingual) way of life is evidence of what Charles Taylor (2002, 2004) describes as ‘modern social imaginaries’, expanding Anderson’s (1991) imagined communities beyond a nation-state frame. Taylor (2002) describes the social imaginary as “the ways in which people imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations” (106). He discusses how normative social imaginaries shift over time, noting that notions of equality and mutual benevolence among individuals (including inherent human rights) have developed through a “long march” from governance by naturalized hierarchy towards the social imaginary of shared democratic control, a transition which is not complete. I situate the social project of contesting language inequalities within this overarching social imaginary, which projects a specific “moral order of society” (Taylor 2002: 92) in which all voices deserve equal value. Like human rights, linguistic equality is an imaginary which often remains a struggle to uphold in social practice due to conflicting norms and politico-economic structures which promote the well-being of some over that of others.

The variety of perspectives and beliefs held by different social actors in relation to language has been explored in the study of language ideologies, or

4 https://en.iyil2019.0rg/

“the understandings, beliefs, and expectations that influence all choices made by language users ... [and] speakers’ sometimes-idealized evaluations and judgments of appropriate language forms” (McGroarty 2010:3). Complex and conflicting ideologies have been described in Indigenous language contexts in Mexico, where expectations of purism, tradition, adaptation and change overlap and clash (Hill and Hill 1986; Messing 2007). Kroskrity (2018) argues that although language ideologies have been studied individually, they usually exist in complex constellations which he terms ‘language ideological assemblages’ (Kroskrity 2018). Conflicting ideologies within a language activism initiative can prove challenging for those involved (Kroskrity and Field 2009; Kroskrity 2009), yet this multiplicity is largely inevitable, and worthy of consideration in and of itself. I view ideologies and imaginaries similarly, noting that diverse actors in the Isthmus hold different views of what is positive or desirable, and negative or undesirable in relation to the changing communication practices around them.

Further, a variety of discourses, or “particular ways of representing part of the world” (Fairclough 2003: 26) (see also Foucault 1980), contribute to strengthening or weakening different ideological positions. For example, a discourse that represents Indigenous Oaxacan languages as valuable and of equal status with Spanish, such as the Todos se llaman lenguas [They're all called languages] campaign, by the non-profit cultural center Centro Académico y Cultural San Pablo in Oaxaca City, is informed by and contributes to the imaginary of linguistic equality, while resisting language hierarchies. The discourses produced by the campaign through flyers and on-line publicity? reinforce and re-create this imaginary, attempting to spread it among members of the public. This imaginary also helps to motivate the Centro Académico y Cultural San Pablo to undertake practices which promote Indigenous languages in academic spheres, including hosting a bi-annual conference on Oto-manguean languages (the language family within which Zapotec is classified) and maintaining a large collection of Indigenous language books (among other languages and topics). At the same time, the fact that many people refer to Indigenous languages as dialectos, not as languages, shows that the colonial-era ideology which places Spanish above all Indigenous forms of communication is widespread and present in daily discourses. The language ideological assemblage in Oaxaca thus includes imaginaries of linguistic equality, and on-going ideologies of linguistic inferiority.

5 Promotional video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vck43KLPKc. Original campaign website: www.todas-lenguas.mx 6 http://bibliotecajuandecordova.mx

1.2 Advocating for what? Approaches to ‘language’ — 7

To claim that linguistic equality is a social imaginary is not to claim that it is a unanimously accepted norm, nor that all members of society embrace or pursue this imaginary in the same way. While arguing that linguistic equality represents a wide-spread ideal or imaginary around the world in the twentyfirst century, I also note that there are different notions of what linguistic equality is in practice, and different notions of how it should be achieved. For some, the inequality experienced by Indigenous language speakers in Mexico is best addressed by imposing the use of Spanish in all contexts, so that equality is understood as a forced homogeneity. For others, equality is best addressed through changing social norms and services so that speakers of diverse languages will have equal access and opportunities while using their own language. These differences in ideologies surrounding Isthmus Zapotec and other minoritized languages contribute to the tense politics of language activism. In education contexts where choices about which languages and which linguistic varieties to teach must be made within the constraints of time and resources, there are often fraught considerations over what will contribute to social well-being and long-term equality for students. Understanding the imaginaries present in a specific context is a crucial first step towards ascertaining how these imaginaries might be advocated for and eventually brought closer to reality.

1.2 Advocating for what? Approaches to ‘language’

Among the social actors who espouse imaginaries of linguistic equality, there is a great deal of variation in what is understood by ‘language’. Perspectives or ideologies of language may be painted in broad brush strokes as ranging from viewing language as an object to viewing language as a social practice. The view that language is an object that can be considered autonomous from context is well-established within linguistics, where structuralist and positivist approaches to language have enjoyed considerable attention and prestige. Linguistic scholarship remains influenced by Saussures’s langue/ parole and Chomsky’s (1965) competence/performance dichotomies, both of which give higher status to the study of langue, competence, and linguistic form. The desire to standardize linguistic practices to conform to an idealized target or native speaker has motivated much applied linguistics scholarship, and in turn influenced many language classrooms. Although there are discussions about the need to go beyond simplistic notions of mother tongues and native speaker competence (Firth and Wagner 1997; Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008), these essentialist notions remain commonplace in much language education practice. Autonomous, objectified views of language have thus been taken up among actors outside of the ivory tower, in particular through schooling. Promoting an essentialized link between a (standard) language, a culture, and an identity has been a strategy of control among the founders of nation-states, in particular in Europe (Gal 2006). Political rhetoric, and language and education policy, continue to create a monolingual and monocultural norm in many parts of the world (Tollefson 1991; Piller 2016).

Heller (2007) discusses how research in the field of bilingualism has helped deconstruct autonomous notions of language, as well as static views of identity, culture and community. She argues for a shift “away from the whole bounded units of code and community, and towards a more processural and materialist approach which privileges language as social practice, speakers as social actors and boundaries as products of social action” (1). A social practice approach views language as something that is created within and by a specific sociocultural context, and that simultaneously impacts and shapes its context of use (Goffman 1981; Bakhtin 1986; Bhabha 1994; Makoni and Pennycook 2007). I refer to this perspective on language and community as constructivist, using this as an umbrella term for the constellation of perspectives that focus on context, process, and the co-construction of both language and social groups.

Constructivist perspectives on language have led to the promotion of integrated and fluid language use in multilingual contexts, building from additive bilingualism (Lambert 1975) towards flexible multilingualism (Blackledge and Creese 2010) and translanguaging (Williams 1994; Garcia 2009a). These integrated approaches to multilingualism stand in contrast to ‘parallel monolingualism’, the ideology that multilinguals should use each language autonomously, rather than mixing and overlapping (Heller 1999). On a larger social scale, a constructivist perspective attends to the linguistic ecologies that emerge through interaction and contact among language communities, creating flows of influence and exchange, especially in multilingual territories (Haugen 1972; Fill and Muhlhausler 2001; Maffi 2001). Power and influence among speakers and speech communities is not understood as top-down nor unilateral, but rather as a dynamic relationship in constant negotiation as a result of numerous contextual factors from local to global scales (Ricento and Hornberger 1996; Hornberger and Hult 2008). Additionally social perspectives on language typically claim criticality, examining power relations and inequalities that may be established and perpetuated through language practices (Bourdieu 1991; Heller and Martin-Jones 2001; Pennycook 2001).

Social practice or constructivist perspectives on language are also reproduced within certain strands of education and popular culture that embrace the fluidity and co-construction of knowledge and meaning. For some educators language learning is understood as a social process that is co-constructed between the learner and those around them, rather than a linear trajectory towards a

1.2 Advocating for what? Approaches to ‘language’ — 9 target norm. The learning process involves building on all available “funds of knowledge” (Moll et al. 1992) in order to develop a contextually appropriate communicative repertoire (Gumperz 1968; Rymes 2010) or a shared repertoire (Wenger 1998) that allows the learner to engage in a community. Recognizing the differing literacy and oral language use patterns of cultural groups, such as Native Americans in contrast to European Americans (Philips 1972; Street 1984; Eriks-Brophy and Crago 1994), is a result of constructivist ideologies of language and literacy. Furthermore, educators may confront inequalities which result from these differences through culturally responsive and sustaining pedagogy (Ladson-Billings 1995; Paris and Alim 2017). Writers, musicians and artists in minoritized communities also often align with a social perspective on meaning-making, contributing to discussions and discourses about fluid forms of language and culture in more or less explicit ways (Webster 2010; Moriarty and Pietikáinen 2011; Williams and Stroud 2013).

Such perspectives are often articulated against a variety of autonomous and essentializing views of language promoted in formal education, politics and the media, whereby a language is seen as autonomous, fixed, and governed by rules to which users must adhere, and is often closely fused with a place and a national identity (Makoni and Pennycook 2007; Blommaert 2010). The political discourse that all Mexicans should speak standard Spanish in order to preserve national unity and because it is superior to Indigenous ways of communicating, is an essentialist language ideology that promotes a homogenous and Eurocentric language ecology. Indigenous, minority languages in particular are often presented in simplistic or essentialized ways in the media and in some scholarly discourses; as exotic structures for linguists, as countable, diminishing resources, or as the channel to an authentic culture and place (Muehlmann 2008, 2012; Moore, Pietikainen, and Blommaert 2010). Many of these representations take place amidst discussions about the marginalization or decline in use of Indigenous languages around the world, generally called language endangerment (Hale et al. 1992). In the media, Indigenous languages of Mexico are often discussed as ‘lenguas en riesgo’, languages at risk, and described as an authentic form of identity or a treasure that is - sometimes ‘unfortunately’, sometimes ‘inevitably’ — being lost. The discourses used to describe and draw attention to language endangerment may contribute to the ideology of language as an autonomous object, and an essentialized link to identity (Hill 2002).

The ideologies or perspectives of actors who advocate for a response to language endangerment are diverse, falling all along the continuum from autonomous to constructivist perspectives and exhibiting varying expectations and beliefs about Indigenous language use across social domains. For example, actors holding an objectifying view of language may feel that linguistic equality has been achieved when all languages are documented and archived, thus preserving them with some degree of accessibility for future generations. On the other hand, actors with a more constructivist perspective may feel that the creation of contexts for language use are essential for all language communities to experience equality, resulting in initiatives such as language nests and immersion schools (Kamana and Wilson 2001; Hinton 2013). Indigenous language speakers and activists have long emphasized social and material understandings of language, as a form of identity, spirituality, connection to land, and relationality to the collective (Ferguson 2010; Meek 2010; Hermes, Bang, and Marin 2012). Henne-Ochoa et al. (2020) discuss Indigenous conceptions of “language-as-a-process-of-sustaining-relationality” (483) with a community and with a place. They note the crucial links between language, place, and identity, while highlighting that it is not a linguistic object that makes these links but rather communication as social action and as process. Consequently, they argue for an approach to language reclamation centered around social relations.