CRITICAL POLITICAL ECONOMY AND CULTURAL STUDIES PERSPECTIVES ON THE MEDIA, LANGUAGE AND CITIZENSHIP

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND PARTICIPATION

INTRODUCTION

This chapter seeks to augment the theoretical framework established in Chapter 2 by discussing language as it relates to power both at the micro and macro levels. Language, which can be an important factor in enhancing diverse participation in the broadcast media, here refers to the codified way in which human beings communicate. Even though the relationship between speech (and media) and power may be questioned (see for instance Daloz & Verrier-Frechette 2000; Berger 2002:22-24) the mass media are of special significance in this discussion in as far as they are highly visible and play a specific amplifying or publicising role, and to the extent that political participation today is characterised by a publicity that is to a great extent mediated through the mass media. In this respect, it may be argued that the language resources which people have at their disposal make it more possible for people to access opportunities that make them productive participants in public debate and in decision making. Language thus has the potential to bring people into the arena of public debate and the broadcast media today play a key role in constituting this arena. Once in this arena, people are (at least potentially) better placed to have a say on issues that relate to their governance and their general well-being. Language policy assigns different roles that different languages may play in various domains. It is important to note, though, that in this process, roles are sometimes assigned to particular languages that limit the utility of these languages.
This thesis concerns itself with examining public debate on how different languages in Uganda are assigned different roles and how their roles in society may be proscribed through policy as well as other processes. Thus the thesis examines on the one hand, the response of the Ugandan government to the language situation, and on the other hand, the response of Ugandans to the language policy. In particular the focus is on the roles assigned to the indigenous Ugandan languages in the broadcast media, and the response of audiences to these roles as assigned. The thesis places the roles that different languages in Uganda have come to play in Uganda’s socio historical context. In particular, it explores the power questions that underlie the roles of the different languages in Uganda’s broadcast media with a focus on radio.
Two main bodies of literature are reviewed in this chapter: sociolinguistics, and critical studies. Emphasis is placed on critical political economy, cultural studies and language ideology. One notes that there is a degree of overlap in these bodies of literature. However, the earlier literature of sociolinguistics proceeded from a positivistic approach, largely assuming that language, is a neutral medium, and that its planning and policy are also neutral, disinterested exercises. More recent literature on the other hand tends to challenge this, pointing out the relationships between language and power. Thus while critical political economy focuses in its analysis on the macro level, and cultural studies on the micro level, language ideology seems to bring together the two levels (macro and micro), concluding that power is not limited to any one site, but is in fact, diffuse (cf. Gramsci 1971).

THE LANGUAGE SITUATION IN UGANDA

According to Wanyeki (2000), there are three broad linguistic groups in Uganda. These are the Bantu, Nilotic and Sudanic (cf. Ladefoged, Glick & Criper 1971:16, 31, 83; Walusimbi 1973:26; Mukama 1986:49;). There is limited mutual intelligibility within languages in each group, and virtually none across the three groups. Linguists have put the number of languages spoken in Uganda between 30 and 40, although 30 seems to be the consensus, with the others considered dialects. Uganda’s constitution (Uganda 1995) names 56 ethnic groups, concurring with the most recent population census (Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2005). However, recent debates relating to a revision of the constitution now put the number of distinct ethnic groups in Uganda at 65. Problems have arisen with regards to distinguishing languages from dialects (Mukama 1986:49; cf. Ladefoged et al 1971; Muthwii 2000:19).
Uganda has two official languages, English and Kiswahili. In addition, Kiswahili is used as a lingua franca in urban areas, and as language of the police and the military, and is increasingly promoted as advantageous for regional integration, but remains unpopular among large sections of the population due to past associations with violent military regimes. Uganda does not have a national language (the search for a national language is discussed in greater depth in Chapter 7).
According to the most recent population census (Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2005) and Ethnologue (2005), Luganda is the language spoken by the largest number of people in Uganda, and the most widely spoken second language although it is unintelligible to many of the non-Bantu population. In some parts of Uganda, Luganda also carries with it the baggage of political oppression from the colonial era (see Chapters 4 and 7 for a fuller discussion of the connection between Luganda and Indirect Rule in Uganda).¹
There is no explicit separate policy for language use in the media in Uganda. This is consistent with Bamgbose’s observation (1991:110; cf. Noss 1971:25) that education policy in most sub-Saharan nations falls within three categories. Official language policy usually addresses the languages recognised by government for different purposes (for instance official languages); educational language policy relates to language recognised by education authorities as media of instructions and subjects of study at various levels and general language policy covers ‘unofficial government recognition or tolerance’ of languages used in the media, in business and in contact with foreigners. The use of the different languages in Uganda’s media is currently guided mostly by expediency (for commercial broadcasters) as well as the policy on language use in education for the state broadcaster. The majority of stations consequently broadcast in one or two commercially viable languages while the government broadcaster attempts to represent as many linguistic interests as possible, currently broadcasting in over 24 languages.

APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE AND POWER

The following section reviews key approaches to the relationship between language and power emerging from sociolinguistics, critical political economy, cultural studies and language ideology.
Sociolinguistics
The literature of sociolinguistics dates back to the 1960s, and focuses on the related issues of language attitudes, language planning and language policy. It also addresses the role of language in defining ethnic and national identity (Scotton 1972:2-3; cf. Bamgbose 1991). Most studies on language status,² language policy³ and language planning carried out in the 1960s and 1970s were done under the umbrella of sociolinguistics. Joshua Fishman, one of the most prolific writers in sociolinguistics defines sociolinguistics as ‘…the study of the complex interaction between
language, its range, and the roles it plays within or across speech communities (Fishman1968a:5).’
Sociolinguistics addresses the parameters that society or sectors of society assign to languages, as well as attitudes towards those languages and their roles (Fasold 1984:1-2). For purposes of the current discussion, sociolinguistics will denote the interrelation between language, the attitudes and interests of different members of a given society and the resultant selection of particular languages for communication in specific situations such as administration, education, the media, the courts of law etc.
The literature of sociolinguistics is considered seminal to scholarship on the subject of language in multilingual nations even though recent scholarship in the field of Languages has differed from earlier sociolinguistics work in fundamental ways. The literature of sociolinguistics typically addresses two central issues: the utility of language in various spheres (e.g. education, the media, courts of law etc.), and the role of language in the formation of identities (hence ethnicity and nationalism) (cf. Bamgbose 1991). The relevance of sociolinguistics for the current discussion is in the fact that sociolinguistics also deals with the role that language plays in the media as a key domain for public discourse (Bamgbose 1991:36-61, 111; cf. Noss 1971:25). As Curran (1991:23) argues in relation to the democratic role of the media:
A basic requirement of a democratic media system should be that it represents all significant interests in society. It should facilitate their participation in the public domain, enable them to contribute to public debate and have an input in the framing of public policy. The media should also represent the functioning of representative organisations and expose their internal processes to public scrutiny and the play of public opinion. In short a central role of the media should be defined as assisting the equitable negotiation or arbitration of competing interests through democratic processes.
Language tends to be crucial in this negotiation process. The attitudes towards the indigenous languages and what roles they are assigned in the public domain, therefore are important issues in discussions of democracy, especially in a country like Uganda where due to historical factors (See Chapter 4), the majority of people can only access public information via the broadcast media in their mother-tongue or the language of a related ethnic group (Ladefoged, Glick and Criper 1971:16).
Ricento (2000) constitutes a current and comprehensive summary of the history of sociolinguistics scholarship. He refers to that body of literature focusing on language policy and planning as Language Policy and Planning research (LPP) (Ricento 2000:6). Ricento categorises the literature according to key factors shaping the research as well as the phases through which it has developed since the 1960s. He argues that the work of LPP has been shaped by three central factors: the macro socio-political, the epistemological and the strategic (Ricento 2000:9). By macro socio-political factors Ricento means happenings at the national or supranational level like state formation, wars, regional agreements and globalisation. The epistemological factors include changes in knowledge paradigms, such as the move from structuralism to post-structuralism in the Social Sciences and Humanities. The strategic factors influencing research on language policy and planning according to Ricento include the motives underlying the particular research in question (Ricento 2000:9).
The first phase of LPP research, according to Ricento, covers work that was done within the paradigm of structuralism, influenced by pragmatism and decolonisation. Ricento argues that work in this phase was influenced by the discourse of decolonisation and state formation at the macro socio-political level, the predominance of structuralism at the epistemological, and the belief that language ‘problems’ could be solved through public sector planning at the strategic level (Ricento 2000:10)
Some of the key works relevant to the current discussion in the first phase of LPP research include Fishman (1968a) and Rubin and Jernudd (1971). The prevalent thinking in this period was that the developing world was lagging behind in linguistic development and that interventions from the West in language status and corpus planning would bring them ‘up to speed’ with their Western counterparts and perchance also influence trends in identity formation and nation building (Ricento 2000:11). Language status planning generally concerns itself with the standardisation of languages, the range these languages cover, the revival of dying languages or the introduction of artificial ones. Language corpus planning on the other hand concerns ensuring that a selected language is modified to conform to the demands of its assigned function. It may therefore deal with vocabulary, orthography, registers, pronunciation, and production of language materials. There may be some overlaps between the two types of planning (Bamgbose 1991:109). It is during this phase that the roles of the Languages of Wider Communication, like English (as a language for use in limited, formal and specialised domains) and the indigenous languages (for more general purposes) evolved. It was widely held in sociolinguistics research during this phase that linguistic homogeneity was more appropriate for furthering the goals of modernisation and Westernisation than linguistic diversity, which was seen as an obstacle. Nation building therefore entailed cultural/ethnic unity within defined geographical boundaries. A common linguistic identity was considered essential to the modern nation state (Ricento 2000:11; see also Fasold 1984:4; Bamgbose 1991:11-13).
The notion of designating as national languages only such languages as were deemed developed or ‘develop-able’ was also prevalent in this phase. Underlying this was the notion that it was important in nation formation, to have one ‘unifying’ language (cf. Mukama 1986:49; Bamgbose 1991:1-36).
One of the myths perpetuated by this phase of research was that language planning was a technical and politically neutral exercise. The primary concern of key language planners in the 1960s and 1970s, therefore, was to so integrate the newly developing independent countries as to enable them to participate more meaningfully in the world economy.
If citizens could speak the same language, it was argued, both unity (by virtue of having a national language) and economic development, keyed to Western technology, financing and expertise, were more likely (Ricento2000:12).
Underlying the above logic however, were attitudes that linked this seemingly developmental project of modernisation to Western national interests. Such attitudes were to be explored in more depth in later phases of LPP research, within the context of the new world order, postmodernist thought, and linguistic human rights (Ricento 2000:12).
It should be noted that during this first phase of LPP research, it was not seen as important to view languages in their socio-historical context. Languages were viewed from a purely utilitarian perspective because language planners perceived (or at least portrayed) it as neutral.
Ricento identifies the second phase of LPP research as one primarily influenced by the failure of the modernisation project, and the emergence of critical sociolinguistics. He dates it from the early 1970s to the late 1980s. Works in this phase include Mateene & Kalema (1980); Fasold (1984); Mukama (1986). This phase of the research was, according to Ricento, informed by the realisation in many developing countries that the anticipated economic breakthrough expected after many African countries attained independence in the 1960s had not materialised. Thus while some themes from the first phase were brought forward in this phase, new concerns, like developing hierarchies of societies and stratifying populations also emerged. Language and culture were seen as central in this ranking. There was a growing realisation in this phase that language policy and planning were not neutral academic exercises, but that they were informed by political and economic motives related to the interests of key Western nations. Scholars also began to point out that the theories of language planning so far advanced by people like Fishman and Jernudd, though useful in offering descriptions of specific language planning situations, were not adequate to explain the structural inequalities in the context in which much language planning activity took place because they eschewed analysis of the roots of prevailing language situations (Ricento 2000:14). In other words, the first phase of LPP research appeared to have ignored the relationship between language and power. The emphasis of the second phase of LPP research therefore shifted from the more technical aspects of language to the social, political and economic effects of language contact. Research now emphasised not languages, their structures and their roles in society but the status and relations of linguistic communities (Ricento 2000:15-16). Furthermore, linguistic scholars began to acknowledge that the selection of language for one function or another in society did not in itself neutralise historical inequalities. On the contrary, it had the potential to exacerbate socio-economic inequalities based, for instance, on education. Access to education in many developing countries tends to be controlled by dominant groups within the area, together with global economic interests abroad (Ricento 2000:16).⁴
Research in this phase demonstrated that the favouring of the colonial languages like English, French and Portuguese as neutral media to aid the development process in developing countries had been informed by the need to further the economic interests of countries in the Metropolis and not by any inherent superiority of the languages themselves. Privileging certain languages over others in language planning tended to limit the utility and the influence of particular languages and their users in national (re)construction. The second phase of LPP research also revealed that linguistic choices were closely linked to the linguistic communities that made those choices, as well as to broader political and economic forces (Ricento 2000:16).

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACRONYMS
SUMMARY 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 STUDY CONTEXT
1.3 CENTRAL ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STUDY
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.5 METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK
1.6 DATA-GATHERING TECHNIQUES
1.7 ORGANISATION OF THE STUDY
1.8 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 2  THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: CRITICAL POLITICAL ECONOMY AND CULTURAL STUDIES PERSPECTIVES ON THE MEDIA, LANGUAGE AND CITIZENSHIP 
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 HABERMAS AND THE PUBLIC SPHERE
2.3 CRITICAL POLITICAL ECONOMY APPROACHES TO THE MEDIA, CITIZENSHIP AND PARTICIPATION
2.4 CULTURAL STUDIES PERSPECTIVES ON THE MEDIA, LANGUAGE AND PARTICIPATION
2.5 TOWARDS A HYBRID APPROACH
2.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES ON LANGUAGE AND PARTICIPATION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 THE LANGUAGE SITUATION IN UGANDA
3.3 APPROACHES TO LANGUAGE AND POWER
3.4 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4 THE SOCIO-HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN UGANDA’S BROADCAST MEDIA
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 THE BROADCAST MEDIA, LANGUAGE AND PARTICIPATION PARTNERSHIP
4.3 A HISTORY OF PARTICIPATION IN UGANDA
4.4 EARLY POST-INDEPENDENCE AND THE FOUNDATION FOR PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY (1962-1967)
4.5 FROM PARTICIPATORY POLITICS TO DICTATORSHIP (1967-1986)
4.6 PARTICIPATION IN A COLLAPSED STATE (1979-1986)
4.7 THE RE-BIRTH OF PARTICIPATORY POLITICS AND ITS MIXED FORTUNES (1986 – PRESENT)
4.8 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5 THE HISTORY, STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE MEDIA IN UGANDA 
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PRINT MEDIA IN UGANDA
5.3 A HISTORY OF UGANDA’S BROADCAST MEDIA
5.4 THE STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF UGANDA’S STATE BROADCASTER
5.5 THE STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF UGANDA’S PRIVATE MEDIA
5.6 THE OPERATION OF THE PRIVATE MEDIA IN UGANDA
5.7 INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE CONTENT AND PARTICIPATION IN THE PRIVATELY OWNED MEDIA
5.8 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6  THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT FOR LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY IN UGANDA’S BROADCAST MEDIA 
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 THE LAWS GOVERNING BROADCASTING IN UGANDA
6.3 POLICY GUIDING THE BROADCAST SECTOR IN UGANDA
6.4 A CASE FOR POLICY AND REGULATION FOR LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY
6.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 7  DEBATING INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE BROADCASTING POLICY IN UGANDA
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 BACKGROUND TO THE LANGUAGE DEBATE IN UGANDA
7.3 UGANDA’S SEARCH FOR A ‘UNIFYING LANGUAGE
7.4 LANGUAGE FOR TRANSMISSION OR PARTICIPATION?
7.5 WHAT UGANDANS SAY ABOUT THE MEDIA, INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES AND PARTICIPATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
7.6 PROPOSALS FOR A MODEL FOR REGULATING LANGUAGE IN UGANDA’S BROADCAST MEDIA
7.7 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 OBSTACLES TO MEDIA PARTICIPATION IN UGANDA’S HISTORY
8.3 OBSTACLES TO PARTICIPATION RESULTING FROM WEAKNESSES IN THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT
8.4 SALIENT ISSUES IN THE CURRENT DEBATE ON LANGUAGE, DIVERSITY AND PARTICIPATION IN UGANDA
8.5 CONCLUSIONS
8.6 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
8.7 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
INDIGENOUS LANGUAGE PROGRAMMING AND CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN UGANDAN BROADCASTING: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY