By Maryam (Mitra) Ferdowsi (Cultural Studies Researcher) - Iran Newspaper – Thursday, October 11, 2018, Issue No. 6897
 |
| Dr. Seyed Javad Miri |
The mother tongue is the language through which each of us first engages with the outside world, through lullabies and the speech of our mothers. It becomes the earliest mold for our thoughts and worldview. Therefore, just as it is important to choose and teach a common official language, it is equally important to devise mechanisms for preserving the non-Persian languages present in Iran. Dr. Seyed Javad Miri considers one such mechanism to be the teaching of these languages in schools alongside other subjects. In his view, the rupture that Iranian children experience from their mother tongues upon entering school has significant cognitive and emotional consequences. It also gradually deprives society of the capacities that non-Persian languages possess.
Below is an interview with Dr. Seyed Javad Miri Minagh, conducted on the occasion of the publication of his book “The Mother Tongue in the Discourse of Social Sciences”, which explores language policy from a sociological perspective. Dr. Miri is a sociologist and associate professor at the Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, and in this interview, an attempt is made to examine the issue of mother tongues through a different lens within the framework of sociological discourse.
Dr. Miri, you’ve paid special academic attention to the issue of mother tongues in recent years. You’ve recently organized two seminars and published a book in which sociologists, philosophers, social psychologists, and language researchers have addressed the subject. What is the significance of the mother tongue in your intellectual framework?
As you mentioned, the mother tongue can be discussed from various perspectives. But what I aimed to address in this book and in my broader body of research is the effort to frame language as a cultural, social, and academic phenomenon—independent of its political, security, and ideological attachments. In other words, I wanted to return language to the realm of the mind and argue that language, as a social phenomenon, can be analyzed in multiple dimensions. I believe that in the hundred years since the establishment of academia in Iran, language has not been sufficiently treated as an academic subject. Yes, many linguistic theories—from Chomsky to Saussure—have been translated into Persian and are taught in our universities. But the question of how language functions socially in Iranian society, outside of political disputes, has not been seriously addressed.
Iran is a country with multiple ethnic groups, each with its own language and culture, which should be seen as a rich and valuable asset. Why, then, does a rupture occur between people and their mother tongues at some point in their lives? What is the theoretical rationale behind this severing of the mother tongue from education?
In my recent book “Reflections on Iran: Unpacking National Identity, Iranian-ness, and Language Policy” published by Naqd va Farhang, I’ve dealt with this question in detail. But to summarize:
First, we need to consider the emergence of specific discourses about language after the Constitutional Revolution, one of the most prominent of which was a Gobineau-inspired (i.e., fascistic) nationalism. Mental frameworks emerging in Europe around the ideas of “one language, one culture, one nation, and one state” penetrated Iran. After the establishment of the Pahlavi dynasty—whose intellectual atmosphere was deeply influenced by German philosophy and ideology—this mindset became increasingly influential in the public sphere and policymaking.
Second, it is important to note the close relationship between language discourse and the discipline of archaeology in Iran. Orientalists and archaeologists from Europe and America framed Iranian history as a rupture between a glorious pre-Islamic past and a lesser post-Islamic era. This means that we have historically approached our past through a discourse of discontinuity. Since then, Iran has been subjected to this discourse of rupture. This, combined with a modernist discourse promoted by figures like Javad Sheikh-ul-Islam, Abbas Iqbal Ashtiani, Mahmoud and Iraj Afshar, Ebrahim Pourdavoud, Ahmad Kasravi, Parviz Natel Khanlari, Mohammadreza Bateni, etc., has gradually shifted the language issue in a direction that treats linguistic diversity as a threat to national unity. Their theoretical frameworks have created a hegemonic influence on language policy that continues to this day. They conceptualized the discourse in such a way that dissenting voices are quickly labeled as anti-Iranian or traitorous.
If we want to view the issue of language not from a political or ideological perspective, but from a cultural and social one—which is the kind of approach you seem to favor—what changes might occur in the current situation?
First, let me say that this kind of discursive shift is not easy. The issue of language and mother tongues is a contentious one, and many different actors are involved—often with divergent views. Some define Iranian and Persian identity through the Persian language; others define it through Shi'ite Islam.
But if we assume that a discursive shift does take place, the question arises: Does a cultural, non-political approach to mother tongue education mean we should allow other languages to replace Persian? My answer is no. Such a perspective does not imply that these languages are enemies or substitutes for one another. To clarify this, we must distinguish among four concepts:
Language as the mother tongue
Language as the national language
Language as the official language
Language as the shared or common language
We can say that Persian is the shared or common language within the minimal political unit of Iran (not the broader Iranian cultural plateau, which once included Central Asia and India). As for the official language, few would dispute that Persian holds this role in Iran. The real debate is over the concept of a national language.
Here we must understand that the idea of "nation" (millat) in pre-constitutional Iran was tied to religion—for example, “Millat-e Ebrahim” referred to followers of the Abrahamic faith. After the Constitutional Revolution, due to global philosophical and metaphysical shifts, "nation" ceased to carry religious meaning. In this modern sense, “the Iranian nation” refers to all citizens living within the political borders of Iran. As such, a citizen who speaks Kurdish or Turkish is not using an anti-national or non-national language. We have multiple national languages in Iran, while Persian remains our official and common language. A Kurdish or Turkish citizen should be able to conduct university studies and official communication in Persian, as stipulated by the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the cultural diversity of Iran has not been properly understood. Among policymakers, the mother tongue is often viewed with suspicion—as an enemy of national and official language. However, historically, these languages have always had their speakers in Iran, and Persian has simultaneously been upheld as a shared language. If we attempt to suppress this diversity through political or security frameworks, we actually endanger national security, social cohesion, and territorial integrity.
Policy shifts in cultural matters always have consequences. If, as you suggest, a child’s connection with their mother tongue isn’t severed at school, what concrete changes might we expect in the cultural and societal spheres? What are the functional benefits of teaching mother tongues alongside Persian in schools?
Some of these benefits are cognitive and psychological—topics that experts like Dr. Hassan Ashayeri (a neuroscientist and psychologist) have explored in depth. When a rupture is imposed from the outside, it disrupts a person’s emotional and psychological structure. Avoiding such ruptures helps individuals avoid alienation and psychological distress.
Other benefits relate to civil and social rights. I believe the demand for the right to mother tongue education in schools has now become a public discourse more than ever and must be addressed. A cultural-social approach to language—not a political one—would pave the way for respecting linguistic diversity while preserving Persian as a unifying national element. It would also respond to widespread public demands and help deescalate social tensions.
In other words, instead of suppressing this demand—which may fuel radical responses—we need to create a framework that both addresses the concern and preserves Persian as the national language, upholds national security, and prevents federalist fragmentation.
Critics often argue that we can’t speak of national unity while embracing divergent linguistic and identity paradigms. For example, they claim that if a Turkish-speaking child is educated in Turkish rather than Persian, they may not develop a sense of public interest or common good because they are growing up in a linguistic “island.” What is your response?
We must distinguish between two very different concepts:
Education in the mother tongue
Education of the mother tongue
Confusing the two leads to the kind of misunderstanding you just mentioned, and as a result, misguided language policies. The issue is not about replacing Persian as the medium of instruction for subjects like math and science with Kurdish, Turkish, Baluchi, etc. That is not the goal. What we sociologists advocate is the teaching of mother tongues as an academic subject alongside other subjects in schools and educational centers.
This raises the question of models. What model should we adopt that allows us to respect Iran’s linguistic diversity while maintaining the unifying role of Persian?
Many researchers suggest we emulate European or American models and then adapt them, but I disagree. Every country has its own historical, cultural, and social conditions. We should look within our own context and find solutions there. In fact, we already have a working model that is over 110 years old. Since the establishment of modern education by Mirza Hassan Roshdieh, Iranian Armenian citizens have been learning the Armenian language in schools, while Persian has remained the medium of instruction for other subjects—just like in any other Iranian school.
So, an Armenian student both learns Persian and is formally educated in Armenian language, literature, and culture. This model fosters both bilingual proficiency and cultural rootedness.
Some of the strictness around mother tongue issues stems from radical behavior by speakers of non-Persian languages. That is, the political lens through which policymakers view this issue also exists among some ethnic and linguistic groups. How can this be moderated?
Absolutely. I want to say this to those who take a pan-nationalist approach to mother tongues and may adopt radical stances: Language should not be mythologized. Turning language into something mythic inevitably causes individuals to define themselves against the "other."
Linguistic issues should be framed within the context of civil rights.
Original Persian Link: https://www.magiran.com/article/3814392
عنوان: گفتوگو با دکتر سیدجواد میری، جامعهشناس و دانشیار پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی – زبان مادری، سیاسی نیست
منبع: روزنامه ایران