Living together as equals: Linguistic justice and sharing the public sphere in multilingual settings45110

Living togetheras equals: Linguistic justice and sharing the public sphere in of linguistic and political autonomy through the territorial division of the state.. This paper deals with l

Living together

as equals: Linguistic

justice and sharing

the public sphere in

of linguistic and political autonomy through the territorial division of the state But whatactually happens inside the territories? This paper deals with linguistic diversity and theestablishment and maintenance of a shared public sphere in political communities inwhich territorial divisions are not possible because the linguistic communities areintermingled I argue that linguistic justice, with the aim of creating the conditionsthat maximize the incentives to share the public sphere, would be achieved if, andonly if, two principles were reached: (1) the equal recognition of all the host languagegroups of the political community and (2) the non-segregation of people for reasons oflanguage Although the relation between the principles can be problematic, I argue thatthey can be fitted into a linguistic theory of justice named ‘Multilingual Convergence’.Keywords

Linguistic justice, equal recognition, non-segregation, shared public sphere, multilingualconvergence

! The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1468796816667143

Any democracy is grounded in the assumption that a people exists; a sovereigndemosdelegates its power to a government and, at the same time, is ruled by thisgovernment This circularity of influence is grounded, however, in the belief that a

‘unique’ demos exists, one whose people act collectively, discussing their differentconceptions of the good and arriving at agreements (or not) about how to managethe common concerns of society In some sense, this requires a degree of unity,

of being one In practice, this could mean that it is necessary to discuss commonconcerns in spaces shared by everyone (a shared public sphere (SPS)) and aboutshared topics, despite the fact that opinions could (and should) be varied As JohnStuart Mill argued, almost 150 years ago, some kind of united public opinion is

‘necessary to the working of representative government’ (Mill, 1998 [1861]: 428)

It was precisely Mill who defended the idea that this shared public opinion cannotexist in a country in which citizens ‘read and speak different languages’ because thiswould lead people to be engaged in different debates, about different topics, read-ing different newspapers and so forth

We could say that linguistic diversity is usually seen as an obstacle, both etically and empirically, to ensuring one of the necessary conditions for democracy:

theor-a SPS However, some scholtheor-ars htheor-ave recently offered propostheor-als ththeor-at theor-aim to ensuredemocracy and just linguistic regimes in compound (i.e federal) multilingual states,granting some kind of linguistic and political autonomy through the territorialdivision of the state (Kymlicka, 1995; Van Parijs, 2011) But what happens whenlinguistic communities are intermingled within a given territory (either sub-state orstate)? In compound states, the public spheres can be linguistically separated andre-joined through federal arrangements (combinations of shared-rule and self-rule),but in intermingled linguistic communities this becomes a difficult (and perhapsundesirable) task

This paper deals with linguistic diversity and the establishment and maintenance

of an SPS in political communities in which territorial divisions are not possiblebecause linguistic communities are intermingled.1That is, it deals with languagepolicies as an indispensable tool in situations of possible conflict As Yael Peledstates: ‘language policy as a human practice emerges from what is, perhaps, themost fundamental characteristic of the linguistic human condition: the inescapabletension between linguistic diversity on one hand, and societal interdependence onthe other’ (Peled, 2014: 301–302) My goal is to establish the principles for a justlinguistic policy, one that allows for the existence of an SPS, understanding this to

be a fundamental precondition for democracy and for the establishment of ciples of justice I will suggest two principles to achieve such a just linguistic regime:(1) the equal recognition of all the host language groups of the political commu-nity;2and (2) the non-segregation of people for reasons of language Together theseform the core of a linguistic theory of justice referred to here as ‘MultilingualConvergence’ and centered on the notion of ‘multilingual virtue’

prin-Before explaining how I will proceed, it is important to clarify that I am dealingwith a normative discussion, that is, with questions concerning ‘the just stateinvolvement with languages and language diversity’ (De Schutter and Boyden,2008: 2) I want to only deal with the just response to language diversity, notwith empirical questions regarding language policies or linguistic diversity Apartfrom that, it is important to note that the view I consider is institutional That is,

I focus on the principles of justice that should guide the design and action of thebasic structure of institutions (Rawls, 1999 [1971]: Section 2) However, despite thisfocus on institutions as the subject or site of justice, I will partially tackle anotherdimension of justice, the dimension linked with relational linguistic justice (the justlinguistic relations among people ruled by just basic institutions) I briefly outlinethis second dimension of justice at the end of the article

In ‘‘Democracy and the public sphere’’ section, I tackle the relevance of ocracy for carrying out principles of justice, and within this, the crucial importance

dem-of maintaining an SPS In ‘‘Language in the public sphere: The inadequacy dem-of theexisting linguistic models’’ section I analyze the role of language in the publicsphere and the inadequacy of existing models of linguistic justice for achieving ajust language regime in order to maintain an SPS In ‘‘The multilingual conver-gence: The first steps towards a new model’’ section, I establish an alternativemodel featuring two fundamental principles of justice: equal recognition of allautochthonous language groups and non-segregation of people for reasons oflanguage Finally, in ‘‘Limits and criticisms’’ section, I deepen the main limits of

my proposal and attempt to address some of the critiques that it could receive

Democracy and the public sphere

Any understanding of democratic citizenship should have the construction andmaintenance of an SPS as a primary aim This is so because it is the space ofcitizen participation, the common ground of dialogue where people deliberateand deal with social and political conflicts It is the place where they decide how

to organize their society in common despite the existence of competing values andconceptions of the good life, in order to establish (in Rawlsian words) the fairprinciples of social cooperation (Rawls, 1999 [1971]) Without these spaces,

I would argue, it becomes difficult to ensure democratic politics Citizens, thus,should discuss in order to convince the others of their own claims, transformingthem during the communicative process, and trying to adopt principles of justice(Young, 2000: 51)

This common ground for dialogue is usually termed the ‘public sphere’ BruceRobbins (1993) defines the public sphere as a phantom, a concept difficult to define,sometimes vague and diffuse However, democratic theories usually acceptthis concept as fundamental for understanding democracy For Habermas, thepublic sphere is ‘a forum in which the private people come together to form apublic, readied themselves to compel public authority to legitimate itself before

public opinion’ (Habermas, 1989b: 25–26) It is a forum where private peoplediscuss public issues of a so-called ‘communicative community’ The publicsphere is neither the state nor the market Its relations are driven through dialogue,not through a rule/power logic nor a supply/demand one It is a space in betweenthe private sphere and the state, which works for the common good by influencingthe decision-making processes of political institutions through dialogue and dis-cussion In a way, the public sphere assumes what Habermas (2001: 97–98) calls the

‘ideal speech situation’, when a ‘symmetrical distribution of the opportunities forall participants to choose and perform speech acts’ is presupposed The publicsphere is, therefore, a prerequisite for the democratic legitimacy of states because

it should allow ‘public information, participation and debate on national policiesand enable citizens to influence and hold accountable political decision makers,turning public opinion into political power’ (Sinardet, 2011: 311)

Sometimes it is difficult to know which elements can be included in the concept.However, if we understand it as a ‘public space of social interaction’ (Gagnon andIacovino, 2005: 31) or some kind of ‘social forum’, we can say that, theoretically,

an SPS is within the boundaries of a political community, shaped by institutionsand includes, among others, their mass media and their citizenship associations,organizations and mobilizations To sum up, it is formed by civil society, whichwas defined by Michael Walzer as ‘the space of uncoerced human association andalso the set of relational networks—formed for the sake of family, faith, interestand ideology—that fill their space’ (Walzer, 1995: 7) whose role is ‘promotingsocial justice’ and democracy (Young, 2000: 158–159)

Which principles, then, should the public sphere follow in order for it to be aspace of social and political dialogue that influences the decision-making processes?Following Fraser (1993), Habermas (1989a, 1989b), and Young (2000), I identifythree guiding principles: public deliberation, political equality, and togetherness

1 The public deliberation principle states that if the public sphere is the socialforum for influencing the decision-making processes, deliberation should bethe guiding method for dealing with conflicts in order to achieve the commongood Deliberation implies a discussion that takes into account criteria related tothe common good, helping to depurate arguments and reasons through every-one’s critique (Ovejero et al., 2004: 29) Individuals can modify their points ofview and preferences through a respectful means (deliberation) with their indi-vidual freedom The point here is to enlarge people’s own preferences to includethe others in a shared common space through an open and inclusive discussion(Ovejero et al., 2004: 39) Conflict should be assumed as natural in a diversesociety and, then, each person or group should defend their own preferences,trying to convince the others and modifying their opinions in order to reach anagreement This conception of the public sphere understands, thus, that this isthe proper site of political struggle (Young, 2000: 178)

2 Political equality, or equal influence over the decision-making process, is pensable if we want to take all people’s interests into account Then, domination

indis-(arbitrary dependence) has to be avoided.3It is not possible to discuss as ‘peers’

if ‘discursive arenas are situated in a large societal context that is pervaded bystructural relations of dominance and subordination’ (Fraser, 1993: 12).Following Philip Pettit’s ‘eyeball test,’ people should be able to look eachother in the eye without feeling inferior in status (Pettit, 2012: 84) Only inthis way, would all opinions be equally recognized and accommodated withinthe public sphere

3 The principle of togetherness tries to fit two distinct conceptions of the publicsphere: first, the public sphere as one common space required for democraticpolitics (Ju¨rgen Habermas); and, second, the public sphere as divided betweendifferent competing publics (Nancy Fraser) Following Young (2000), I arguethat the two theories can be made compatible A public sphere should be shared

by all the publics without allowing isolation across, for example, languagegroups At the same time, everyone has to defend their opinions across lines

of difference, especially in issues that concern them all (Fraser, 1993: 18) Hence,despite diversity, some sense of togetherness within the competitive and conflict-ing public sphere is also needed In a way, I am implicitly accepting that sharing

a space of dialogue would allow people to perceive the others as something

‘more than sheer curiosities or trade partners’, but as equal participants whorequire my explanations and reasons (Van Parijs, 2011: 26) To my mind, I amarguing for an understanding of togetherness in which all citizens should beincluded in what Van Parijs calls a ‘justificatory community’

Having established what a public sphere is, and having established what ciples should guide it, there still seems to be something missing (which is commonlymissed in debates over democratic theory): the issue of language One thing is clear:without communication there is no SPS Hence, the question becomes, how can wedeal justly with linguistic diversity within democracies that are multilingual andmixed?

prin-Language in the public sphere: The inadequacy of the existing linguistic models

Until now, there have been two main proposals for solving the explained tensionbetween multilingualism and dialogue: the Nation-Building model and the LinguisticPluralism model I set aside a third model that argues that the state should notinterfere in language issues because state neutrality is a requirement of justice

A liberal state, they would argue, should not interfere in reasonable conceptions

of the good life in which people are freely engaged Nevertheless, almost all lars agree with the fact that this is empirically impossible: any state needs language

scho-to function Without language, how could their bureaucracy, or education systemwork? Therefore, I am going to take into account only the other two models.The Nation-Building model has been the most common since the birth ofthe modern nation-state The expansion of industrialization (Gellner, 2001)

and democracy and the creation of popular armies have all led to nation-statespromoting homogenizing linguistic policies in order to enable communication.Additionally, the learning of the national language was seen not only as a com-mitment to the common fate of the nation, but also as a tool for communication.Recently, scholars like Brian Barry (2001) and Thomas Pogge (2003) have defendedthis necessity of converging on one unique language as a tool to walk towardsnon-identity goals like equal opportunity or democracy From the perspective ofpolitical philosophy, these proposals are usually grounded in a concrete under-standing of liberalism (liberalism 1)4which states that: (1) language is just a tool

to achieve other socially valuable objectives (mobility, freedom or equality); and,thus (2) language assimilation (respecting language rights in the private sphere) isdesirable in order to achieve those ends.5

By contrast, the Linguistic Pluralism model is based on the equal treatment

of language groups, grounding its proposal in another conception of liberalism(liberalism 2) This second conception, based on Kymlicka’s leading work (1995),defends people’s right to be members of a ‘context of choice’ (culture) that enablesthem to be autonomous Therefore, in this model, language is not only a tool foraccomplishing non-identity claims, it is also a tool for accomplishing identity goals

In this regard, equal recognition becomes relevant to making these valuable texts of choice possible However, the way in which this model can be institutio-nalized is not always easy to establish One way is through the linguistic personalityprinciple, that is, a principle which establishes that linguistic rights can be exercised

con-by people independently of where they live in the political community (De Schutter,2011) The second way is through the territoriality principle, a principle whichstates that languages should be territorially maintained, because language rightsdepend on the territory in which one lives and on the linguistic majority of thisterritory and not on people’s choices The most strict (and common) understanding

of this principle says that each particular territorial unit should give public support

to only one particular language group (Van Parijs, 2011) In what concerns us, that

is, political communities where territorial divisions are difficult to draw becauselinguistic communities are mixed, territoriality would lead to a situation similar tothe Nation-Building model (despite the fact that the reasons for defending it aredifferent) Therefore, my ‘personality’ understanding of the Linguistic Pluralismmodel is based on ‘freedom of choice’ among the different recognized languages

of the political community

Regarding what concerns us, that is, the maintenance of an SPS as an importantdemocratic tool for carrying out principles of justice, I would argue that none ofthese models fulfills all of the needed principles As I show in Table 1, both modelsare inadequate for achieving all of the principles required for guiding a publicsphere

The Nation-Building model can fulfill the principle of public deliberation becauseeverybody would be capable of deliberating in the same language However, pol-itical equality and togetherness would not be accomplished, especially during theperiod of transition towards the time when everyone will speak the same language

Political equality cannot exist if there are relations of domination That is, ing Philip Pettit’s ‘eyeball test’, people should be able to look each other in the eyewithout feeling inferior in status (Pettit, 2012: 84) Outside of this condition, peoplecannot discuss as peers, as equals whose (linguistic) interests are equally treated.

follow-If my linguistic interests are not treated equally, then, there would be a violation of

my dignity, a fact that can affect another important principle: togetherness In such

a case, the bases of self-respect (as a relevant Rawlsian primary good) could bediminished When societies fail to recognize all of their members as equal citizens,social cooperation could be undermined and the phenomenon could lead to somepeople being regarded as inferior In such cases, togetherness is almost impossibleprecisely because some people could feel displaced due to reasons of self-respect(dignity) I will tackle the dignity arguments in the next section

The Linguistic Pluralism model (the personality one) is capable of gettingpolitical equality, but it is not capable of getting either communication (publicdeliberation), because there are not enough incentives to understand the language

of the other, or togetherness Of course, personality allows one to learn all of therecognized languages, but it is up to the people to do so Political equality would befulfilled because everyone’s (linguistic) interests would be recognized, then, dom-ination would be institutionally avoided and discussion as peers would be madepossible However, despite the fact that equality would be fulfilled, the fact thatpeople would be allowed to choose among all the recognized languages could lead

to a segregated public sphere, where people engage and share spaces (schools,hospitals, associations .) only with people who speak their language (theircommunicative community) This could diminish the possibility of togetherness(precisely because there would exist different public spheres inside the politicalcommunity) and also common deliberation In that sense, the political systemcould lead to a segregation of the public sphere which, in turn, may imply manyrisks: each sphere could create a shared collective imaginary, with the possibility ofstrengthening common fears and diminishing mutual understanding One mightreply saying that the existence of a few multilingual individuals (journalists, polit-icians or civil society activists) might allow for a reasonable degree of debate acrosslinguistic communities So deliberation and togetherness could fit to a certainextent within this model I would answer using two reasons First, even acceptingthis argument, a ‘perverse’ mechanism might remain: the so-called ‘linguisticbowing’ I will explain this concept later, but the point is that minorities would

Table 1 Language models’ relation to the fulfilment of public sphere principles

Shared Public Sphere principles

have a lot of incentives for learning the majority language anyway regardless

of whether their language is publicly recognized, but not the other way around.Second, I think this kind of rationale might distort the notion of an SPS

I am arguing for To my mind, an SPS includes the possibility of general pation and deliberation An SPS is not endorsing some kind of minimal democracy

partici-in which only a small mpartici-inority of multilpartici-ingual partici-individuals can really deliberate

So, wide communication is presupposed as something necessary to allow broadparticipation Therefore, the Linguistic Pluralism model does not ensure such

a thing

It might be suggested that, in spite of the existence of a pluralist, free-choiceregime, we could foster a policy in which a neutral lingua franca provides thelanguage of communication (for example, Esperanto or a foreign language withoutnative speakers inside the given multilingual political community) For a defender

of this position, such a proposal could accomplish all the principles of an SPS

I would rule it out for two basic reasons First, for an opportunity-cost reason.Why should one spend her time learning a lingua franca instead of learning thelanguage of (some of) her co-citizens? I do not see any reason for so doing unlessthis lingua franca is useful beyond one’s context (worldwide, for example) But still,there is little reason to think that people would have bigger incentives to learn thenew language rather than the language of (some of) their co-citizens Host lan-guages are the ones used daily by their neighbors They listen to them on TV,radios, streets, in school or shops Even learning these ones can offer a widerexpectancy of economic success in the short term than learning the linguafranca For example, think about South Tyrol or the Basque Country Probablyone has more chances for getting a job through learning German or Basque in thesecontexts rather than learning, say, English

Second, for a dignity-based reason On one hand, it would suppose a ‘statusproblem’ As Van Parijs (2011) rightly points out, it would undermine parity ofesteem between the locals (both majority and minority language groups) and thenative speakers of the lingua franca On the other, this might lead to a more thanlikely linguistic substituting process The lingua franca would acquire a new publicstatus, creating incentives to use it in the public sphere and promoting diglossicattitudes (‘I use my own language in the private sphere, but the new lingua franca

in the public one’) In the mid-term, this ‘secluding’ process of local languages

in the private sphere might lead to a complete linguistic substitution.6It is ant to remark that this ‘lingua franca’ argument is assuming an institutionalperspective It is the political community that adopts (and promotes) English(or any lingua franca) as a public language of intercommunication ratherthan being a pragmatic decision spontaneously chosen by individuals.7Therefore, it is this policy which, in the mid-term, would change individual dynam-ics, favoring the new high-status language As Stephen May (2015: 134) suggests,

import-‘history shows us that diglossic contexts do little, if anything, to mitigate existinglinguistic hierarchies and their deleterious effect over time on lower status ‘‘local’’languages’

The multilingual convergence: The first steps towards

a new model

If the existing normative models are inadequate, we might have to seek anothergrounding for a linguistic theory of justice capable of fitting with the guidingprinciples of an SPS As I will explain, the normative solution is to politicallyorganize our democracies in a way that maximizes the incentives to share apublic sphere in which people engage in debates together, despite all the (undeni-able and necessary) diversity of society

I argue that linguistic justice, with the aim of creating the conditions that mize the incentives to share the public sphere, would be achieved if, and only if, twoprinciples were reached: (1) the equal recognition of all the host language groups

maxi-of the political community; and (2) the non-segregation maxi-of people for reasons maxi-oflanguage Although the relation between the principles can be problematic, I arguethat they can be fitted into a linguistic theory of justice named ‘MultilingualConvergence’, focused on the notion of ‘multilingual virtue’

The equal recognition principle

A principle advancing equal recognition should lead to institutional arrangements

in which all languages are equally accommodated However, what does recognitionmean? And how should equality be understood?

Recognition, as such, is not an easy concept to deal with Charles Taylor, usingHegel, argues for an understanding of recognition in which people ‘flourish only tothe extent that they are recognized Each consciousness seeks recognition inanother [ .]’ (Taylor, 1992: 50) Recognition is based on a reciprocal relationamong human beings; it is the ground floor that allows people to see the others

as equals, as people worthy of respect and esteem (Taylor, 1992) Without thisrequirement, I might perceive others as unworthy of respect, and they might per-ceive themselves the same way When institutions fail to recognize all people asequal members of society, social cooperation is undermined, leading to somepeople being regarded as inferior Self-respect, as a primary Rawlsian good, issustained when institutional conditions allow each citizen to recognize and respond

to others as equal citizens Without this self-respect, people’s moral strength could

be undermined (Rawls, 1999: Section 82).8Thomas Ricento, who deals with guistic exclusion from both a theoretical and empirical point of view states that,when assimilation (which implies lack of recognition) takes place, ‘very often theirloss of linguistic legitimacy contributes to their diminished social and economicstatus’ (Ricento, 2014: 361)

lin-Furthermore, Alan Patten (2014: 158) defines recognition ‘as a customized form

of accommodation of an identity-related component of a conception of the good.[ .] the objects of recognition are preferences that are informed by, or expressions

of, an identification with some group or community.’ Expressions and preferences,

I would argue, that require recognition in order to create the conditions

for people’s freedom in society However, this ‘identity-related’ component of ognition is difficult to determine What is a reasonable expression and/or preferencerelated to our identity? This is a tremendously difficult question to answer.However, our focus is on language, which is less problematic because there is noway to function without it.

rec-Once ‘recognition’ has been defined, let us see what equality implies for ourconception of equal recognition In general, Alan Patten defines equality as when a

‘comparable form of customized assistance is extended to each of them The samekind of rules, facilities and resources that are offered to assist one are also offered toassist the other(s)’ (Patten, 2014: 161) Although Patten’s conception of equalityseems to be a good starting point, a strict application of this form of equality couldlead to injustices Let us see a linguistic example to clarify that As a consequence ofPatten’s way of understanding equality, he proposes a ‘prorated official multilin-gualism’, where ‘two or more languages enjoy equal recognition from public insti-tutions when those institutions extend roughly comparable forms of assistance toeach on a prorated bases’ (Patten, 2014: 200) This prorated base intends to takeinto account the number of people demanding services in each recognized lan-guage, ‘offering the same per capita level of assistance to the different languagesthose individuals speak’ (Patten, 2014: 200) Yet, this form of equality could lead

to very unjust outcomes, especially if the starting point is itself unjust (for example,

in cases of historical or economic injustices9) But, even without unfair backgroundconditions, treating equally what is clearly unequal would not be a good idea even

if we believe in a procedural understanding of justice (and not in outcomes)

If language A is spoken by 70% and language B by 30%, prorated equal tion could lead to the disappearance of language B As Van Parijs (2011) explains,

recogni-in multilrecogni-ingual communities people met and talked recogni-in everyday life, creatrecogni-ing alinguistic dynamic that reinforced the strongest languages That is a consequence

of the maxi-min dynamics, defined as ‘the mutual reinforcement of sensitive language learning and the systematic use, in everyday communication,

probability-of the language best known by the speech partner who speaks it least well’(Van Parijs, 2011: 54) Such dynamics often negatively affect the weakest linguisticgroups, paying only them the linguistic burdens of living together It is whatVan Parijs calls the ‘linguistic bowing’, in which one part of the citizenshipalways has to change its language in order to communicate with the other Thatmeans that these citizens have to learn the strongest language, but not the otherway around, imposing all the cooperation costs of living in society on some groupsbut not to others Following Pettit’s (1997) understanding of domination, thementioned problem is at the core of what domination implies in the linguisticdomain When there is a group taking on board the (legitimate) linguistic interests

of their co-citizens in using their own language publicly via learning their languages(and being able to understand them), but it is never the other way around, there is arelation of linguistic domination at stake.10 The reason is because one group isalways forcing the others to ‘linguistically bow’ in front of them FollowingStephen May’s (2014) question, we could ask, why do some people have