Language management: A snapshot of governmentality within the English-medium schools

in Quetta, Pakistan

Syed Abdul Manan, Maya Khemlani David & Francisco Perlas Dumanig

Abstract

Pakistan is a multilingual and multiethnic country; however, this diversity stands unrecognized
in the formal language-in-education policies. Estimates suggest that about 90% of children who
speak over 60 indigenous languages do not have access to education in their mother tongues.
Linguists estimate that exclusive teaching of Urdu and English subject the indigenous languages
to physical endangerment as well as negative perceived vitality. This study investigated the
language management techniques, practices and discourses of the school authorities about
indigenous languages and linguistic diversity, and its effects on perceptions of the students. The
study used the theoretical framework of governmentality as introduced by Foucault (1991),
which focuses not only on the direct acts of the governing of the state apparatuses, but it also
addresses the indirect acts of governance that shape individual behaviors. Deploying a mixed
methodology that used students of high secondary level, teachers and school principals as
sampling in 11 low-fee English-medium private schools in Quetta Pakistan, the findings suggest
that school authorities exercise stringent techniques such as notices, wall paintings, penalties and
occasional punishment to suppress the use of languages other than Urdu or English. Mostly, the
students also show compliance to the top-down policies. Most of participants perceive
indigenous languages as worthless because of their lesser role in professional development and
social mobility. The study concludes that the governance methods displace the indigenous
languages both physically as well as perceptually. The prevailing orientations look upon
languages as commodities, profoundly downgrading the cultural, literary, aesthetic and
sociolinguistic dynamics of the indigenous languages.

Keywords: governmentality, language management, English, Urdu, indigenous languages,

Pakistan

Introduction

Earlier research in language policy and planning largely focused on the macro-level, top-down
national language planning and the resolution of language problems (Fishman, 1979; Haugen &
Dil, 1972), while subsequently, more critical approaches addressed the ways language policies
marginalized languages and communities (Phillipson, 1992, 2009; Phillipson & Skutnabb-
Kangas, 1996; Tollefson, 1991, 2006). Between the above two major approaches emerged a new
approach, which Menken and García (2010) describe as ‗new wave of language education policy
research‘ that focuses on ‗agency in implementation‘ (p. 2). The new approach calls for
dynamism that addresses the crucial role of human agency in the policy-making processes. Its

1
proponents emphasize that language policies should be understood from field surveys and actual
practices (Canagarajah, 2005; García, 2009; Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Ramanathan, 2005).
The proponents of the new approach posit that language policy and planning is as complex as a
multilayered ‗onion‘, a metaphor Ricento and Hornberger (1996) proposed about the dynamic
nature of language policy. Similarly, Spolsky (2004) explained that ‗language policy
encompasses all the language practices, beliefs and management of a community or polity‘ (p.
9). Language policy is ‗dynamic‘ and ‗more multilayered‘ as there are ‗many individuals
involved in its creation and implementation‘; therefore language in education policy research
should shift focus from top-down government policies to bottom-up policy structures focusing
on ‗local school administrators, teachers, students, parents, and community members‘ (Menken
& García, 2010, p.1-3).

Underpinned by the dynamic and micro-level approach towards the study of language
management and implementation mechanism, this study investigates practices and beliefs of
different agents in 11 low-fee English-medium schools in Pakistan. Adopting a bottom-up
approach, the study focuses on the agents impacted by the top-down language policies. The
emphasis is on the implementation of these policies by the principal agents who are involved in
the governing of language policies within the schools. The need for present study arises because
most of the scholarship on language polices in Pakistan examines the macro-level language
policies and historical developments (Ayres, 2003, 2009; Mansoor, 2004a, 2004b; Rahman,
1996, 2002). Moreover, more than 60 indigenous languages in Pakistan are faced with threats of
erosion partly due to exclusivist national policies that recognize and promote the institutionalized
development of Urdu and English only, while remainder of the indigenous languages baring
Sindhi and to a nominal degree Pashto, remain confined within traditional domains such as
homes and intra-community usage. Previously, Rahman (1996, 1999, 2002) extensively covered
the politics-driven and ideology-laden language policies of successive governments that resulted
in exclusion of the indigenous languages from the mainstream domains particularly the school
domain. The official orientation evidently views linguistic diversity as a problem, envisaging a
uni-national thesis for national unity (Ayres, 2009; Rahman, 1997; Torwali, 2014), and
apprehends the official recognition of the indigenous languages would pose threats to national
unity and integration of the federation (Ayres, 2009).

In light of this issue, the present study shifts attention to micro-level actual language policies
and their effects on linguistic landscape in schools. The study seeks to show how school
authorities manage language policies acting to (a) glorify the prestige of Urdu and English as the
only ‗legitimate languages‘, (b) produce discourses to construct negative images about the
indigenous languages, and (c) influence behaviors of the students to devalue their mother
tongues vis-à-vis Urdu and English, the two institutionally powerful languages. These English-
medium schools generally charge low fee to cater to the educational needs of children from the
lower-middle and lower economic strata of society. The number of such schools exponentially
increased over the last two decades, almost ten-fold (Andrabi, Das, & Khwaja, 2008). Surveys

2
suggest that one out of three school-going children attends private schools in Pakistan (Muzaffar
& Sharma, 2011). The study addresses the following research questions:

1. How do school authorities manage language policies in schools, and what rationales are
adopted for their language management mechanism?
2. How do students respond to the language management policies of school authorities, and
how they rationalize their positions on the policy?
3. How do language policy discourses at the micro (school) levels differ from or match to
the macro (official/governmental) levels?

Conceptual framework of the study

Pennycook (2002) proposed a postmodernist stance on the analysis of micro-level language

policy enactment methods drawing on the notion of governmentality used earlier by (Foucault,
1991). Governmentality refers to the ―indirect acts of governing that shape individual and group
language behavior‖ enacted through ―techniques and practices of politicians, bureaucrats,
educators, and other state authorities at the micro-level as well as the rationales and strategies
these authorities adopt‖ (Tollefson 2006, p. 49). Governmentality was first introduced by the
French philosopher and sociologist Foucault in a series of lectures delivered in 1978 and 1979.
Foucault conceived that government was not a sovereign or singular power, but a combination
and ensemble of multiple and multilayered practices involving government of oneself,
government within social institutions, communities and government of the state. Foucault
defined governmentality as the ―conduct of conduct‖ (conduire des conduites), addressing the
power and governance that takes place from a distance to influence the actions of others.
Governmentality ―takes the focus off a singular state-driven hegemony‖ (Johnson 2013, p. 118).
As a theoretical construct, governmentality focuses not only on the governing of the state
apparatuses, but it also addresses the governing of the individuals:

Government designates the way in which the conduct of individuals or of groups might be
directed: the government of children, of souls, of communities, of families, of the sick . . . to
govern, in this sense, is to structure the possible field of action of others (Foucault, 1982, p.
790).
Drawing on the concept of governmentality and the new dynamic and micro-level approach to
research on language policies and practices (Spolsky, 2009), this study investigates the language
management mechanisms and the multilayered policies and practices that teachers and school
authorities as actors/managers of language policies enact in schools. The study aims further to
explore and analyze the language management tools and techniques in schools through the prism
of what (Foucault, 1982, 1991, 1995) theorized as governmentality. We chose governmentality
because it offers an analytical framework that helps analyze governance at a distance (Foucault,
1991). This framework may help to explore how educators in schools use ‗techniques of power‘
(Dean, 2010 ) to enact ‗the conduct of conduct‘ (Foucault, 2009).

3
Definition of the key terms

To fully understand the concept of this study, a few key terms such as language management,
mother tongue and orientation are defined:

Language management refers to the ‗conscious and explicit efforts by language managers to
control the choices‘ and ‗the explicit and observable effort by someone or some group that has or
claims authority over the participants in the domain to modify their practices or beliefs‘
(Spolsky, 2009, 1-4).

Mother tongue is used in the sense UNESCO (1995) defines it, which is ―the language which a
person has acquired in early years and which normally has become his natural instrument of
thought and communication‖. It may also be termed as the identity marker of an ethnic group , a
marker which one emotionally identifies oneself with (Pattanayak, 1998, p. 129).

Orientations (Ruiz, 1984) refer to the way administrators/teachers and students perceive the
value of indigenous languages vis-à-vis the current school policies, linguistic diversity and
multilingualism.

Overview of language policy and planning in Pakistan

The sociolinguistic situation

Pakistan is a multilingual and multiethnic country. 1The estimated number of languages is 77, of
which 72 are considered indigenous while the remainder 5 languages are labeled immigrant
(Ethnologue, 2014). Urdu is the national language while English is the official language which is
used in the domains of power such as government, education, law, corporate sector, research and
media. The language hierarchy is based on power in which English stands as the most powerful;
Urdu occupies second position, while the rest of minor and major indigenous languages stand at
the lowest rung in the language hierarchy ladder. Urdu and English receive substantial
institutional support in the domains of power especially in education; however, the indigenous
languages with exception of Sindhi and Pashto languages stand excluded from all domains of
power including education (Mansoor, 2004a; Rahman, 2002, 2005a). A provision of the 1973
constitution proclaims the official language planning and language policy (LPLP) in the
following words:

(1) The National language of Pakistan is Urdu, and arrangements shall be made for it being used
for official and other purposes within fifteen years from the commencing day (1973).
(2) Subject to clause (1), the English language may be used for official purposes until
arrangements are made for its replacement by Urdu.

1
Several other researchers have given the number of total languages in Pakistan—five major and 55 other small
languages (Rahman, 2005:73); 75 languages (Pinnock, 2009) and 71 languages (Coleman, 2010)

4
(3) Without prejudice to the status of the National language, a Provincial Assembly may by law
prescribe measures for the teaching, promotion and use of a provincial language in addition to
the national language.
Table 1 displays the major languages of Pakistan and the percentage of speakers of each of these
languages2 (GOP, 2001).

Table 1: Major languages of Pakistan

Pakistani Languages
Languages Percentage of speakers
Punjabi 44.15
Pashto 15.42
Sindhi 14.10
Siraiki 10.53
Urdu 7.57
Balochi 3.57
Others 4.66
Source: Census (GOP, 2001, p. 107)

Languages across domains

Urdu language
Urdu is second in the hierarchy of languages after English and functions as the language of wider
communication (LWC) in the urban centers. As identity marker and as an emblem of national
unity, Urdu also serves the ideological goals. Rahman (1997) noted that the founders of the
nation established Urdu as a ―uni-national thesis‖, which would help bring together the diverse
ethnolinguistic groups of the country (p. 148). An array of scholars testifies to the fact that
language policies and political ideologies are deeply intertwined. The same holds true for
Pakistan as scholars discuss the relationship between political ideology of the state and its
approach towards the management of indigenous languages (Ayres, 2009; Durrani, 2012; Jalal,
1995; Khurshid, 2009; Mustafa, 2011; Rahman, 1996). The supremacy of Urdu transpires in one
of the public speeches of the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah (1948) when he
declared that:

…the State Language of Pakistan is going to be Urdu and no other language. Anyone
who tries to mislead you is really the enemy of Pakistan. Without one State language, no
nation can remain tied up solidly together and function (Jinnah, 2000, p. 150).

2
GOP stands for Government of Pakistan.

5
Despite the importance given to the Urdu language, English language still plays a crucial role in
Pakistan because it is considered a powerful language.

English language

English is the official language of Pakistan that is used in the domains of power such as
government, courts, universities, media, corporate sector, research, etc. Education and
proficiency in the English language are viewed as passport to upward social and economic
mobility (Mansoor, 2005), and as passport to privilege (Rahman, 2005b). By virtue of the
instrumental function of the English language in socio-economic mobility and social privileges,
Mahboob (2002) argued that there is no future without English language in Pakistan. Elsewhere,
Rahman (1997) contended that, ―English remains the language of power and high social status in
Pakistan. It serves the entry of the rich and the powerful into elitist positions while filtering out
those who are educated in Urdu‖ (p. 151). Access to quality English language education is class-
based rather than widespread; therefore, inequitable distribution and uneven supply of the
English language amounts to linguistic and social apartheid, creating acute social polarization
(Hussain, 2013; Mustafa, 2011; Rahman, 2004; Shamim, 2012; Siddiqui, 2012).

Indigenous languages

Over 60 indigenous languages suffer from marginalization across every prestigious domain
including education except Sindhi and to negligible extent Pashto. The political and institutional
dominance of Urdu over the rest of the indigenous languages reflects a situation, which Rahman
(2005a) described as ‗Urdu imperialism‘. The policies of governments suggest that the
indigenous languages are yet to be recognized as cultural, educational or linguistic capital
(Mustafa, 2011). Language planning is marked by institutionalized linguistic exclusivism. Ayres
(2003) concluded that ―Language-identified movements, deemed antinational by the center, were
and still are dealt with primarily through authoritarian crackdowns…Accommodation has been
eschewed‖ (p. 79). The policies have left the indigenous languages as social ghettos (Rahman,
2005a).

Given the macro-level exclusivist policies, and the narrow spaces accorded to the major and
minor indigenous languages across domains of power including schools, this becomes critical to
investigate the governmentality within the schools to show how different stakeholders view and
perceive the value of the indigenous languages vis-à-vis Urdu and English. Furthermore, this
study also aims to show how school authorities as managers enact governmentality about
indigenous languages. Exploring this will help determine the extent of perceived and real vitality
of the indigenous languages.

6
Methodology

This study took place in 11 English-medium high schools in Quetta, the provincial capital of
Balochistan province in Pakistan. The schools are labeled as non-elite or low-fee private schools
(Andrabi et al., 2008; Rahman, 2004). The population of the study includes students of higher
secondary classes (grade 9th and 10th) and school principals/heads. The study employed a mixed
method using questionnaires and interviews (structured and open-ended), observation (non-
participant), field notes and informal interactive sessions with students and principals. A total of
110 students from higher secondary classes responded to questionnaire while 30 of them also
participated in interviews. Moreover, 11 school principals also responded to formal interviews.
Observation on the use of language (s) between student-to-student and teacher-to-student was
conducted. Furthermore, the use of languages across linguistic landscape such as wall-chalking,
noticeboards and instructions was carefully observed to examine the language management
policies in practice.
The data from the questionnaire that focused on biographical information and responses on
students‘ desired language policy were arranged statistically computing frequency counts and
percentages at descriptive analysis level. On the other hand, the interview data were transcribed
verbatim and translated from Urdu into English. The analysis followed a six-phase process which
Braun and Clarke (2006) put forward for the analysis of qualitative data: familiarizing with data,
generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes;
and producing the report. Observation sought to notice outstanding occurrences that surrounded
the language management issues. Finally, we would like to deem a caveat about the
generalizability and limitations of the research. The findings of the study are strictly
representative of the schools surveyed; it does not claim to generalize the findings.

The data

The respondents and the setting

According to Rahman (2004), non-elite English medium or low-fee schools are varied to the
extent that ―they defy classification‖ (p. 42). In a study on low-fee private schools in Jamaica,
Kenya, Tanzania, Ghana, Indonesia and Pakistan, Heyneman and Stern (2013) defined low-fee
private schools ―as one whose tuition was lower than half the minimum wage‖ of the country
concerned (p. 5). These schools apparently cater to the educational needs of students whose
come from low-income families; however, a number of students also belong to well-off families
running business or holding agricultural land. Mostly, their families are either illiterate or semi-
literate.
The age of the respondents ranged from 16 to 20 years while in terms of gender, n=16(15%)
were females and n=94(85%) were males. The participants‘ linguistic background suggests that
98% of them including students, teachers and school principals were speakers of the numerically

7
larger languages of the province such as Pashto, Balochi, Burahvi and Persian. The others used
Punjabi, Urdu and Siriaki languages.
Generally, these schools attract and cater the children of the middle, lower-middle and
working class families. Andrabi et al. (2008) observed that contrary to the portrayal given in
government policy that all students in private schools belong to rich families, ―…Rather they are
from middle class and poorer families who pay very low fees‖ (p. 3). Parents of these children
desire them to receive education in the English language; a language perceived as a passport to
brighter social and economic prospects (Mansoor, 2005; Mustafa, 2011; Rahman, 2004, 2005b;
Rassool & Mansoor, 2007; Shamim, 2012).

How do school authorities manage language policies in schools and what rationales are
adopted for their language management mechanism?

In this part, we present the language management mechanisms the administrators of the schools
apply, and the rationales they use for the management of the policies. The data draws on multiple
sources—questionnaires, interviews, observations and field notes. We elaborate on language
management mechanisms that particularly restrict the use of indigenous languages within the
schools

Prohibition of indigenous languages

Evidence suggests that school principals strongly emphasize the use of English or Urdu
languages within the school premises and classrooms. To ensure the students‘ full compliance,
teachers are strictly instructed to conduct surveillance and discourage the use of indigenous
languages. Commitment to the use of either Urdu or English languages is communicated through
both oral and written instructions. Oral instructions are communicated through teachers and
school heads in classrooms and in the morning assembly sessions. In turn, teachers stress on the
same policy in classrooms where no student is allowed to use his/her mother tongue (in case
mother tongue is a indigenous language). In addition, the same policy is communicated through
written posters, notes and circulars displayed on notice boards and classroom walls. Instructions
lay stress on the use of Urdu or English only, and prohibits students from speaking their mother
tongues. Below is an illustration of one such policy measure:

8
 Image 1: Prohibition on use of indigenous languages

Pejorative remarks about indigenous languages

The researchers also noticed a school principal using pejorative remarks about Pashto, one of the
largest languages spoken in the province. Pejorative comments were made in a sarcastic parody
of the kind of words, accents and tone Pashto-speaking students were using in their peer-to-peer
interaction within the schools. She asserted that hearing students talking in their mother tongues
rather than the national and official languages like Urdu and English was a nuisance, which she
would try her best to curb. The principal said, ―I always stop students from speaking in ‘dagha
dagha‖, referring sarcastically to the use of Pashto language. Scholars have previously found
almost identical language management policies coupled with stigmatization of the indigenous
languages. Rahman (2005:80) observed that school authorities in the elitist English-medium
schools forbid students from using Punjabi language, and ―If anyone spoke it, s/he was called
Paendu (‗rustic, village yokel‘) and made fun of‖. The principal of a private school drove a
student away saying that, ‗Out, out. He speaks Punjabi’, writes Torwali (2014) in a newspaper
article. Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) posited that such stigmatization of the minor languages was
causing linguistic genocide, while Cummins (2000) postulates that such negative messages foster
inferiority complexes and feed negative attitudes in children about their linguistic and cultural
identity.

Physical punishments and penalties

To manage official school policy, the administration and teachers exercise firm measures for
compliance, which may invite occasional punishments and penalties. For instance, one of the
school principals had following arguments to justify punishments and penalties:

9
 Local languages are not allowed here. If they use any of the local languages, we fine
them 10 3PKR. We do so because we think it is beneficial for them. Other reason is that if
one child speaks Pashto language, another one will speak Farsi, yet many others will
speak Balochi, so there will be problems.

Spolsky (2009) and Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) also discussed imposition of language policies in
schools through punishment of different kinds. Skutnabb-Kangas used the term linguistic
genocide in education with reference to coercive methods of language management. Linguistic
genocide takes place both in soft and hard, in overt and covert forms. In soft forms, it shapes in
the form of ideas which occur invisibly through ―direct agent (e.g., the teacher) may be nice and
friendly‖, and that policy measures are undertaken ―in the best interest of the child‖ (Skutnabb-
Kangas, 2000, p. 320). Identical practices like physical punishments are held in the upscale elitist
English medium schools as Khurshid (2009) recollected her school experiences as a student in
one English-medium school:

English was the language of communication in both academic and social settings. If any
student inadvertently uttered a word in the vernacular, she was rapped on the knuckles
with a wooden ruler as punishment. The primacy and supremacy of English was encoded
in our minds (p. 13).

Ghettoization of indigenous languages

Governmentality mechanisms of school authorities result to ghettoization of the indigenous

languages. The suppressive school policies and language socialization appear to influence views
of the students using indigenous languages. The respondents suggest that the indigenous
languages are suitable for home and community rather than for formal domains like the schools
because of the limited scope of these languages within the mainstream institutions. Importantly,
the respondents shy away from proposing any alternative role for the indigenous languages
beyond traditional home and community domains, the roles nearly all the indigenous are
currently ghettoized. Both practical methods and attitudinal orientations in schools resulted to
exclusivism, thus pushing the indigenous languages to the margins. Rahman (2005) argued that
the policies leave most of the indigenous languages as social ghettos. The respondents accord
little value to the indigenous languages, and consider no spaces for those languages in any formal
or institutional role other than homes and community, the two informal domains. Similarly, in a
sociolinguistic study, Mansoor (1993) also found that there was a wide-spread shame among the
Punjabi speakers about their ethnic language in Punjab.

3
PKR stands for Pakistani Rupee.

10
How do students respond to language management policies of school authorities, and how
they rationalize their positions on the policy?

Positivist orientations towards linguistic hierarchization

The respondents‘ endorse current linguistic hierarchy. Overtly, they do not show any dislike for
their languages as identity carriers; however, impliedly, they approve the exclusion of their
languages. Critically, they also shy away from suggesting any alternative policy for their own
languages. They argue that Urdu and English are naturally preferred owing to their national,
official and international statuses (See interview excerpts in annexure). Previous studies also
indicate the same findings (Mahboob, 2002; Manan & David, 2013; Manan, David, & Dumanig,
forthcoming; Mansoor, 1993, 2004b; Rahman, 2005a). As illustrated in the following figure, the
desired medium of instruction policy is predominantly tilted towards English as a medium while
Urdu as a subject. Mother tongue based education policy does not receive any favor nor does
Urdu medium inspire their interest. The language policy preferences are close to a previous study
on medium of instruction choices of undergraduates in Pakistan (Manan & David, 2013). In a
country-wide survey on language preferences and language attitudes, Mansoor (2004b) found
that the respondents‘ ―negative attitudes to their own languages as seen in their preference to
study in English and Urdu medium at all levels of schooling‖ (p. 333).

Eng&MT, 6, 6%
Urdu&MT, 2,
2%

English, 53,
Urdu&Eng, 48%
42, 38%

, 0, Urdu, 0, 0%
English,Urdu&
MT's, 7, 6% 0% M.T's, 0, 0%

Figure 1: Desired medium of instruction policy

Transactional/instrumental value versus cultural/literary value

The respondents perceive academic literacy (reading and writing) in their mother tongues of less
value because they believe those languages do not promise substantial rewards in terms of
material or instrumental transactions. Both students and school authorities believe that education
in mother tongues will push them backward. Since literary advantage in mother tongues does not
translate into a strong market commodity; therefore their literacy holds no value. Literacy in the

11
English language receives primacy because it can potentially open up gates for better economic
opportunities and dignified living. In addition, proficiency in English can expectedly maximize
social and economic power and prestige. Only 2 out of 11 school principals supported the use of
indigenous languages in schools while majority of them underlined that the students needed
proficiency and practice in English and Urdu more than in their mother tongues. Literacy in
mother tongues is not required, as students already know them. Furthermore, schools authorities
told that parents spend their hard-earned money on their children primarily to see their children
acquire proficiency in English as well as Urdu because only these two languages promise a
definite prosperous future.

Linguistic diversity as a resource versus problem

As in most multilingual contexts, the views of respondents are characterized by typical

contestation between linguistic-diversity-as-a-resource versus linguistic-diversity-as-a-problem
paradigms (Ruiz, 1984). They believe that since Pakistan is ethnolinguistically a diverse country;
therefore, the government cannot afford to teach all the languages in schools. They are inclined
more towards reductionist policy, which they believe can work better in the diverse linguistic
landscape of Pakistan. They put their premium on a language policy dominated by the English
language, while Urdu may continue as a subject. The suggested policy clearly implies that the
indigenous languages may altogether be wiped out (See interview excerpts in annexure). Torwali
(2014), a writer and language activist argues that cultural and linguistic diversity has never been
a favorite subject in our national discourse.

With exception of two, the remaining school principals do not subscribe to the view that
the indigenous languages may be introduced in schools. Critically, one of the school principals
had gone to the extent that the demand for introduction of indigenous languages may be a
conspiracy hatched by the enemies for disintegration and disunity of Pakistan, and such policy
was practically challenging and ideologically detrimental. It would cause what he implied was
linguistic confusion among students. In his views, the unity of the country must take precedence
over the death of languages as he asserted that:

There are people who under the guise of mother tongue based education, play in the
hands of enemies… If the local languages die by not being taught at schools, let them die
because what we need to think is the life and survival of the people of Pakistan. If the
national solidarity and unity is sacrificed for the sake of local languages, we will split
into parts. We need to promote only Urdu as a common symbol of national identity. Let
languages die, but secure the country. We have a living example of Bangladesh.

Data through the lens of governmentality

Three main issues will anchor the discussion: language management in schools, students‘
response and the similarity or difference between the top-down (government) and bottom-up
(school level) language policies. Foucault (2000) suggested, governmentality provides an

12
analytical tool that focuses on ―governance at a distance‖ (p. 341), searching for patterns in
everyday activity of the techniques of power or governance by which the conduct of citizens is
regulated, is also known as the conduct of conduct. The discussion seeks to analyze practices and
patterns within day-to-day school life replicating ‗the conduct of conduct‘. Ettlinger (2011)
believed that governmentality is conducted ―so as to materialize societal norms in daily practices,
a process of normalization‖ (p. 238). According to Niesche (2013), the notion of ‗conduct of
conduct‘ ―implies that government is acting on the conduct of people, that is, how one governs
the self‖(p. 5).

Evidence shows that language management mechanism is characterized by intolerance and

suppression in the schools surveyed. English language dominates in the curriculum while Urdu is
only featured in the curriculum and stands as the de facto dominant language within the school
ecology. Authorities as managers enforce a strict Urdu-English oriented policy and prohibit the
use of indigenous languages in classes and school premises. They believe that since English and
Urdu are the two legitimate school languages; therefore no language other than those should be
used in schools. To enforce this policy, authorities alongside the school teachers deploy various
discourses and techniques that range from verbal and written instructions to penalties and
punishments. In the governmentality processes, there are discourses that demonstrate devaluing
and stigmatization of the indigenous languages and the glorification of English and Urdu
languages. Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) explained that the pattern of stigmatization of minor or
minoritized languages normally involves three strategies: stigmatization of the dominated
languages, and glorification and rationalization of the dominant languages. When applied at
present, English and Urdu, the two dominant institutional languages are glorified and
rationalized while the indigenous languages receive stigmatized connotations such as local,
backward and materially valueless. Deploying the above tools, school authorities tend to send
clear messages that make their subjects (students) believe that ―A stigmatized language cannot,
(should not) be used as a medium of education‖ (p. 348-349). Enactment of punitive actions
amounts to glorification of the official and the national languages. Students‘ perceptions are
managed and programmed to make them believe that ―mother tongues have no value; they are
not used in foreign; and they have no scope in official domains‖. Such perceptions are effectively
indoctrinated and enacted in practice.

The practices and indoctrination of certain ideological images as we observe are well
documented and theorized in literature on language ideology, marginalization and endangerment.
As agents of change, school policies and socialization patterns contribute outstandingly in the
construction of negative images about the weaker languages. Skutnabb-Kangas‘ (2000) viewed
that the loss and endangerment of languages is not a natural outcome of organic decay of
languages as many positivist would make us believe. The shift from one language to another
does not occur without any agency or intentionality. The weakening and ultimate death of
languages must be understood as a process of murder, linguicism and linguistic genocide.
Languages do not die on their own, agencies such as schools accelerate their disappearance.

13
Linguistic genocide must be seen as enforced by a set of interrelated agencies. These may lie in
unequal power relations between languages, their speakers, the communities and so on. May
(2001) posits that historical and political processes play their part in elevating languages—the
national languages while the same processes turn others to become ‗minoritized‘, and most often
‗stigmatized‘(p. 127). School is a critical state-sponsored institution that constantly constructs an
ideology that the vernacular languages are not ―real languages‖. According to Shohamy (2006)
―the use of these languages in schools is prohibited, for both students and teachers, as schools
being powerful institutions for imposing language behaviors‖ (p. 148).

Students whose vast majority speaks indigenous languages largely remain complaint to the
top-down policies. Observation suggests that they tend to use their mother tongues with their
peers especially in the absence of any monitoring; however, their perceptions about the macro as
well as school policies can be considered ‗positivist‘ and ‗apolitical‘ (Tollefson, 2006, p. 281).
The techniques and practices of school authorities seem to have left a marked effect on the way
students value their mother tongues vis-à-vis English and Urdu. Tollefson (2006) contended that
governmentality is an ―indirect acts of governing that shape individual and group behavior‖(p.
49). We argue that the construct of governmentality helps us understand the complex nuances of
the micro-level language management and language socialization about the valuation and
devaluation of different languages. Underpinned by multi-layered data, we shall briefly delineate
some aspects of governmentality that clearly glean from the way languages are managed and
perceived in schools. The aspects are as follows: rationalization, normalization, legitimization,
subjectification, stigmatization, docility and resistance.

We find that both school principals as language managers and students as receivers of
policies term the current policies as the only available rational choices, legitimizing the
domination of some while the exclusion of many other languages. Simultaneously, the
respondents put up a docile gesture by underrating the value of their own mother tongues vis-à-
vis the institutionally dominant languages. As Fimyar (2008) observed, indirect enactment of
governance of the ‗conduct of conduct‘ achieves the core purpose, cultivating beliefs that
naturalizes and normalizes the current formal policy—a process that germinates ―subjectification
(ie, creating governable subjects‖ (p. 10).

Rationalization is closely intertwined with the concept of governmentality (Fimyar, 2008).

Rationalization signifies that the governmentality is normally driven by discourses and actions
that rationalize and thus perpetuate the existing system. In this study, we find that the views of
respondents and the language management tools employed in linguistic landscape of the schools
apparently rationalize the current English-Urdu language policies. The respondents‘ insights as
well as practices loudly state that they subscribe to policies which reduce the indigenous
languages to social ghettos, an orientation that is closely coordinated with the macro-level
official policies—the enactment of governmentality ‗from the distance‘. This is evident in the
statements of students as:

14
  I don’t think local languages should also be taught in the school.
 A mother tongue is suitable only for informal atmosphere, not formal like school;
 Teachers should be forbidding the use of mother tongues in school; they should, because
mother tongue is only for home, not for everywhere.

How do language policy discourses at the micro (school) levels differ from or match with the
macro (formal/official) levels? This question is set to recapture the language management
mechanism and governmentality discourses held within the schools at micro level for the
purpose of comparison and contrast with the official policies. The foregoing evidence shows that
formal policies held about languages, linguistic hierarchy and linguistic diversity appear to have
left profound trickle-down effect on perceptions, policies and practices of school authorities and
students at the micro-level. The top-down macro-level policy discourses are exclusivist, so are
the discourses about policies from the bottom. Largely, students tend to rationalize the social
ghettoization of their own languages by nearly full and unconditional endorsement to the top-
down policies. Additionally, we can discern clear effects the top-down (macro-level) policy
orientations leave on the bottom-up perceptions and practices. To illustrate this point, the
orientations at both levels could suggest that—linguistic diversity can be a problem, not a
resource; languages hold low cultural and literate value; and English and Urdu are the only
legitimate languages that are exclusively entitled to dominate every formal domain. One also
needs to substantiate the assertion that the macro-level governmental policies have always seen
linguistic diversity as a problem rather than an asset. The hegemony of Urdu-only and English-
only was to serve the ‗politics of state-making‘ (May, 2005), and would help neutralize any
ethnolinguistic assertiveness. It is a historical fact that activism for the recognition and
emancipation of the local languages has been viewed with apprehension and perceived as a sign
of secessionist tendency from the top (see Ayers, 2009; Rahman, 1996). Evidently, schools also
show the same signs as the use of indigenous languages is viewed as a nuisance and that
encourages the use of various indigenous within the schools might upset the perceived harmony
Urdu and English can bring to the environment.

To sum up, utilizing multi-layered evidence, we propose that governmentality is enacted

from the distance through unofficial means. The management mechanisms at the micro-level are
in alignment with the ideological leanings of the central policies. The deployment of
governmentality helps foster uniformity of ideology cultivating a compliant mentality that tends
to submit to what the official policy formulators and governors would have desired from the
distance. We find that governmentality results in creating subjects that uncritically rationalize the
top-down policies. Attitudinally, spaces for the Urdu language even become squeezed vis-à-vis
the English language. As such, their language beliefs are indicative of what critical applied
linguists would term as positivist and apolitical (Pennycook, 2001; Tollefson, 2006). The
demonstrated docility to the current policies also underpins the impacts governmentality leaves
on their minds. Impacts are manifested when some students idealize linguistic and ethnic
homogenization; when they view indigenous languages as mere carriers of identity; and when

15
they passively legitimize the current linguistic exclusivism. The production and reproduction of
legitimate language (Bourdieu, 1991) in school performs a form of social engineering which
shrinks spaces for ethnolinguistic vitality and enforces a form of culture shame. This is done
through practices and discourses that either explicitly or implicitly ‗demonise‘ (McCarty, 2009),
‗minoritize‘ (May, 2001, 2005, 2006) or ‗backwardise‘ (Mustafa, 2011) the indigenous
languages .

In the end, a critical question arises as to what would have influenced the orientations of the
educators. One possible answer could be the commercial motive of the school principals to
impress upon parents and students that they offer a genuine English-medium environment in
their schools. Teachers, on the other hand, are naturally bound to comply with the principals‘
instructions. More broadly, the external social conditions would have much to do with the
orientations of all the stakeholders as studied. As Menken and García (2010) aptly observe:

Educators‘ external realities, driven by the social context in which they are educated,
trained, supported, and teach, as well as their internal ideologies, beliefs, and attitudes,
also have much to do with language education policies (p. 256).

Sociolinguistically, the respondents live in conditions where the top-down policies are highly
exclusivist, ideology-driven, politically motivated, and homogenizing in essence. With social
power, prestige and socioeconomic capital nearly singularly conferred on the English and
partially on the Urdu language, the external conditions are likely to take effect on the way
educators conduct governmentality. Therefore, as García, Skutnabb-Kangas, and Torres-Guzman
(2006) contend, ―language ideologies are responsible for the closing of spaces for multilingual
practices in schools‖ (p. 37).

Conclusion and the way forward

This study concludes by endorsing the view that educators are ―at the epicenter of the dynamic
processes of language policy making‖ (Menken & García, 2009, p. 262). However, in the context
of the present study, the formal language management mechanisms of educators orientate more
towards rigidity than dynamism, and they tend more to ―close off‖ than ―creating ideological and
implementational spaces for multilingualism within their own practices‖, an ideal proposition
which (Hornberger, 2003) proposed for a vibrant ecosystem where languages flourish than
become endangered. In terms of both linguistic orientations and physical linguistic landscapes
across the schools surveyed, the indigenous languages (excluding Urdu) are on the margins while
the dominance and prestige of English and Urdu are recurrently glorified and rationalized. The
policies create what Mohanty (2010) termed as ‗double divide‘ in India, which demonstrated that
multilingual hierarchy puts English on the apex of language hierarchy, while the local languages
are further hierarchized in terms of the national versus regional languages and the state-majority
languages versus the state-minority languages—a vicious cycle of linguistic marginalization. The
same situation pervades in Pakistan. The official stance of educators predominantly orientates

16
towards homogeneity and suppression of diversity. Notably, one might observe a ripple of
resistance to the suppressive language management policies of educators in the shape of
students‘ informal social interaction in the indigenous languages outside class or in absence of
their teachers; however, officially, the emphasis is overtly to close off spaces for a vibrant
multilingual ecology. The suppression is conducted through notices, penalties, punishments and
verbal rebukes.

We propose that as analytical tool, governmentality helps in tracing the connection

between larger social conditions, macro-level language policies and the governmentality
mechanism at the school level. In their response to external conditions, the respondents tend to
show complete docility to the current linguistic hierarchy, endorsing the official configuration of
languages as rational, normal and natural. Actions of educators as ―servants of the system‖
(Shohamy, 2006, p. 79), and as ―agency in implementation‖ (Menken & García, 2010, p. 2), play
a vital role in governing mentalities. Their actions also helps create docile bodies through
mechanism such as ‗Discipline and Punish‘ (Foucault, 1977). Foucault envisaged that docile
bodies are created through recurrent regulation and surveillance of individuals in ways that are
often subtle and apparently invisible, enforcing normalization and acceptance of the existing
system.

Although most of the major indigenous have robust oral traditions; however, they are
genuinely faced with acute crises of erosion on literary and institutional development fronts.
More alarmingly, children not learning to read and write in their mother tongues potentially
become alienated from the rich literary treasure and available cultural knowledge. Rahman
(2005) and UNESCO (2014) signaled towards the dangers of extinction a large number of small
languages are faced with. The crucial question remains as to how this tide of endangerment could
possibly be stemmed so that the indigenous languages, which embed a rich body of cultural,
historical, literary, folkloric, and linguistic treasure, may be preserved and vitalized. We propose
Rahman‘s (2005) proposition for—a comprehensive paradigmatic shift in favor of additive
multilingual policies in education. The vitality can be achieved by establishing a multilingual
habitus (Benson, 2013) across schools, and by ―teaching all children, including those from the
elite, through their mother tongue‖ (Rahman, 2005, p. 84). Coleman (2010) and Mustafa (2011)
had also advanced an alternative language policy paradigm, which holds mother tongues, English
and Urdu languages. We believe that schools can play an important role in minimizing the level
of ghettoization and marginalization most of the indigenous languages are undergo currently. In
addition to the opining up of ideological and implementation spaces for a multilingual and
multicultural policy at the policy level, there is need for a wide-scale advocacy campaign, raising
awareness and activism spearheaded by linguists, liberal educationists, writers and language
activists. The awareness would possibly educate government and public about the value of
indigenous cultural knowledge and literary treasure and would foster the utility of
multilingualism and multiculturalism—a paradigmatic shift that would help deconstruct the

17
fallacious ideology that linguistic diversity is problematic, and would debunk the misperceptions
that multilingualism is divisive.

References

Andrabi, T., Das, J., & Khwaja, A. I. (2008). A dime a day: The possibilities and limits of private
schooling in Pakistan. Comparative Education Review, 52(3), 329-355.
Ayres, A. (2003). The politics of language policy in Pakistan. In M. E. Brown & Š. Ganguly
(Eds.), Fighting words : Language policy and ethnic relations in Asia (pp. 51-80).
Cambridge: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs John F. Kennedy School
of Government, Harvard University.
Ayres, A. (2009). Speaking like a state: Language and nationalism in Pakistan. Cambridge UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Benson, C. J. (2013). Towards adopting a multilingual habitus in educational development. In C.
Benson & K. Kosonen (Eds.), Language Issues in Comparative Education (pp. 1-16):
Springer.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3, 77-101.
Canagarajah, S. (2005). Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah, N.J. ;
London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Coleman, H. (2010). Teaching and learning in Pakistan: The role of language in education.
Islamabad Pakistan: The British Council.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy : Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Dean, M. (2010 ). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed.). Los Angeles:
Sage.
Durrani, M. (2012). Banishing colonial specters: Language ideology and education policy in
Pakistan. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 27(1), 29-49.
Ethnologue. (2014). Languages of the World. Retrieved July 20, 2014, from
https://www.ethnologue.com/statistics/country
Ettlinger, N. (2011). Governmentality as epistemology. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 101(3), 537-560.
Fimyar, O. (2008). Using governmentality as a conceptual tool in education policy research.
Educate (special issue), 3-8.
Fishman, J. A. (1979). Bilingual education, language planning, and English. English World-
Wide, 1, 11-24.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777-795.
Foucault, M. (1991). The Foucault effect : Studies in governmentality with two lectures by and
an interview with Michael Foucault. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish : The birth of the prison (2nd Vintage Books ed. ed.).
New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (2000). The subject and power. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Essential Works of Foucault
(Vol. 3, pp. 326-348). New York: New Press.
Foucault, M. (2009). Security, territory, population : Lectures at the Collège de France : 1977-
78. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

18
García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Oxford:
Wiley/Blackwell.
García, O., Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Torres-Guzman, M. E. (2006). Imagining multilingual
schools : Languages in education and glocalization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
GOP. (2001). Census. Islamabad Pakistan: Retrieved from http://www.pbs.gov.pk/.
Haugen, E., & Dil, A. S. (1972). The ecology of language. Essays ... Selected and introduced by
Anwar S. Dil. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Heyneman, S. P., & Stern, J. M. B. (2013). Low cost private schools for the poor: What public
policy is appropriate? International Journal of Educational Development, 35(0), 3-15.
Hornberger, N. H. (2003). Continua of biliteracy : An ecological framework for educational
policy, research, and practice in multilingual settings. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and
spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3),
509-532.
Hussain, K. (2013). Rethinking education: Critical discourse and society. Islamabad Pakistan:
Narrative Publication
Jalal, A. (1995). Democracy and authoritarianism in South Asia : A comparative and historical
perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jinnah, M. A. (2000). Jinnah: Speeches and statements 1947-1948. Karachi Pakistan: Oxford
University Press.
Khurshid, N. K. (2009). Language education in Pakistan: A postcolonial analysis Masters of
Education, Critical Studies, The University of New Brunswick New Brunswick.
Mahboob, A. (2002). No English, no future: Language policy in Pakistan. In S. O. B. Hartford
(Ed.), Political independence with linguistic servitude: The politics about languages in
the developing world (pp. 1042). New York: NOVA Science
Manan, S. A., & David, M. K. (2013). Mapping ecology of literacies in educational setting: The
case of local mother tongues vis-à-vis Urdu and English languages in Pakistan. Language
and Education, 28(3), 203-222.
Manan, S. A., David, M. K., & Dumanig, F. P. (forthcoming). Ethnolinguistic dilemma and static
maintenance syndrome: A study of languages policies and language perceptions in
Pakistan. Language Problems and Language Planning.
Mansoor, S. (1993). Punjabi, Urdu, English in Pakistan: A sociolinguistic study. Lahore:
Vanguard.
Mansoor, S. (2004a). The medium of instruction dilemma: Implications for language planning in
higher education. In S. Mansoor, S. Meraj & A. Tahir (Eds.), Language policy, planning,
& practice: A South Asian perspective. Karachi: Agha Khan University.
Mansoor, S. (2004b). The status and role of regional languages in higher education in Pakistan.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 25(4), 333-353.
Mansoor, S. (2005). Language planning in higher education: A case study of Pakistan. Karachi:
Oxford University Press.
May, S. (2001). Language and minority rights. London: Pearson Longman.
May, S. (2005). Language rights: Moving the debate forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(3),
319-347.
May, S. (2006). Language policy and minority rights. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to
language policy : Theory and method (pp. 255-272). Malden, Mass. ; Oxford: Blackwell.

19
McCarty, T. L. (2009). Empowering indigenous languages: What can be Learned from Native
American Experiences? . In R. P. T. Skutnabb-Kangas, A. K. Mohanty & M. Panda (Ed.),
Linguistic Diversity and Language rights:Social Justice Through Multilingual Education
(pp. 125-139). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Menken, K., & García, O. (2010). Negotiating language policies in schools : Educators as
policymakers. London: Routledge.
Mohanty, A. K. (2010). Languages, inequality and marginalization: Implications of the double
divide in Indian multilingualism. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
205, 131-154.
Mustafa, Z. (2011). Tyranny of language in education, the problems and its solutions. Karachi:
Ushba Publishing International.
Muzaffar, I., & Sharma, A. (2011). Public-private debates in education: Whither private without
a public? J-SAPS, 1.
Niesche, R. (2013). Governmentality and my school: school principals in societies of control.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1-13.
Pattanayak, D. P. (1998). Mother tongue: An Indian context. In R. Singh (Ed.), The Native
Speaker: Multilingual Perspectives (pp. 124–147). New Delhi: Sage.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics : A critical introduction. Mahwah, N.J. ;
London: L. Erlbaum.
Pennycook, A. (2002). Language policy and docile bodies: Hong Kong and governmentality. In
J. W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 91-110):
Mahwah NJ Erlbaum.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued. New York ; London: Routledge.
Phillipson, R., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1996). English only worldwide or language ecology?
TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 429-452.
Pinnock, H. (2009). Language and education: The missing link , how the language used in
schools threatens the achievement of Education For All. UK: Save the Children.
Rahman, T. (1996). Language and politics in Pakistan. Karachi ; Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rahman, T. (1997). The medium of instruction controversy in Pakistan. Journal of Multilingual
and Multicultural Development, 18(2), 145-154.
Rahman, T. (1999). Language, education, and culture. Karachi Pakistan: Oxford University
Press.
Rahman, T. (2002). Language, ideology and power : Language learning among the Muslims of
Pakistan and North India. Karachi ; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rahman, T. (2004). Denizens of alien worlds : A study of education, inequality and polarization
in Pakistan. Oxford ; Karachi: Oxford University Press.
Rahman, T. (2005a). Language policy, multilingualism and language vitality in Pakistan. In A.
Saxena & L. Borin (Eds.), Lesser-known languages of South Asia – status and policies,
case studies and applications of information technology (pp. 73-106). Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Rahman, T. (2005b). Passports to privilege: The English-medium schools in Pakistan. Peace and
Democracy in South Asia,, 1(1), 24-44.
Ramanathan, V. (2005). The English-Vernacular divide: Postcolonial language politics and
practice: Multilingual Matters.

20
Rassool, N., & Mansoor, S. (2007). Contemporary issues in language, education and
development in Pakistan. In N. Rassool (Ed.), Global issues in language, education and
development: Perspectives from postcolonial countries (pp. 218-244). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Ricento, T. K., & Hornberger, N. H. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy
and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401-427.
Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15-34.
Shamim, F. (2012). English as the language for development in Pakistan: Issues, challenges and
possible solutions. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Language and development: Africa and beyond
(pp. 97-118). Addis Ababa Ethiopia: The British Council.
Shohamy, E. G. (2006). Language policy : Hidden agendas and new approaches: Abingdon:
Routledge.
Siddiqui, S. (2012). Education, inequalities & freedom: A sociopolitical critique. Islamabad:
Narratives Publication.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education, or worldwide diversity and
human rights? Mahwah, N.J. ; London: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality : Language policy in the
community. London: Longman.
Tollefson, J. W. (2006). Critical Theory in language policy. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction
to language policy : Theory and method (pp. 42-59). Malden, Mass. ; Oxford: Blackwell.
Torwali, Z. (2014, April 7). The beauty of diversity, The News International. Retrieved from
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-242741-The-beauty-of-diversity.
UNESCO. (1995). The use of the Vernacular in Education. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2014). Language vitality and endangerment Retrieved February 26, 2013, from
http://www.unesco.org/culture/.

21