Leila Mojtahedi | Shahrvand Magazine | March 8, 2012
 |
| Dr. Alireza Asgharzadeh |
Lecture by Dr. Alireza Asgharzadeh on the Occasion of International Mother Language Day
Thirteen years ago, UNESCO, followed by the United Nations, designated February 21 as "International Mother Language Day" at the suggestion of the representative of Bangladesh.
The United Nations values linguistic diversity worldwide, considering it a "common heritage of humanity." It defends the rights of languages that are disrespected by the dominant language in some societies and views the right to speak and use one's mother tongue in private and public life as an inalienable human right.
In Iranian society, having equal rights for all prevalent languages, their official recognition, and the right to education in one's mother tongue can be a constructive and significant beginning in addressing racial and linguistic discrimination, realizing human rights, and moving toward democracy.
While February 21 may not hold much significance for many Persian speakers in Iran, for us non-Persians, who have always faced oppression and neglect regarding our language and identity since the Pahlavi era, this day is considered valuable and important.
On this significant day, as in previous years, the Azerbaijan Language and Culture Foundation of Iran-Canada held a rich program in Toronto. On February 18, the Azerbaijan Foundation hosted an event where Dr. Alireza Asgharzadeh, a researcher and professor of sociology at York University, spoke in Turkish.
Dr. Asgharzadeh began his speech by congratulating International Mother Language Day and thanking the organizers of the event, emphasizing the sacredness of the mother tongue, which he described as a spiritual and cultural asset that should be respected. He structured his remarks in a coherent and comprehensive manner around four main sections:
The philosophy and sociology of language in Marx and traditional Marxism
The role of Antonio Gramsci
Pierre Bourdieu, the French tradition, power, and symbolic violence
The relationship of the aforementioned sections to current issues in Azerbaijan and Iran
The Philosophy and Sociology of Language in Marx and Traditional Marxism
Dr. Asgharzadeh expressed his concern and dissatisfaction regarding the promotion of a certain type of anti-intellectualism and anti-enlightenment in some Azerbaijani circles today. He noted that nowadays, as soon as individuals speak about Marx and Marxism, they are immediately accused of being "Stalinists" or "populists." However, academic Marxism has had a significant impact in the fields of philosophy, social sciences, and humanities, to the extent that without a proper understanding of Marx and the Marxist tradition, a sociological comprehension of concepts such as language, culture, and economy becomes impossible. For example, if we want to analyze the status of language and its transformations from a philosophical and sociological perspective, we must examine the viewpoints and observations of Karl Marx as a pivotal point in these transformations.
After this introduction, Dr. Asgharzadeh elaborated on the philosophy of language in Marx's worldview. In this section, he analyzed concepts such as material base, cultural/discursive superstructure, language as action/practice, and language as part of the cognitive/thinking process.
The Role of Antonio Gramsci
After examining the issue of language in Marx, the speaker analyzed the position of language in the worldview of the Italian thinker and intellectual, Antonio Gramsci. He introduced Gramsci as one of the most prominent Marxists of the twentieth century, noting that studying linguistics and belonging to one of the minority groups in Italy placed Gramsci at the center of linguistic discussions. Although Marxists from the outset did not separate the concepts of language, culture, and discourse from issues of power and politics, it was Gramsci who clearly and comprehensively presented these discussions as political categories.
The speaker highlighted Gramsci's significant role in pursuing the field now known as "cultural Marxism," explaining this Italian philosopher's views on "hegemony theory" and the concept of "subalternity." He then examined language, particularly "grammar," from Gramsci's perspective, specifically discussing two domains: spontaneous grammar and normative grammar. The speaker also pointed out the commonalities between Gramsci's "natural and normative grammars" and Chomsky's "universal grammar," using examples from Turkish and Persian to help clarify this complex topic.
Pierre Bourdieu, the French Tradition, Power, and Symbolic Violence
In this section, Dr. Asgharzadeh stated that in recent years, various discussions related to the structure of political power and the application of violence or non-violence in the political sphere and social movements have emerged from the intellectual class in Iran. Following the formation and gradual decline of the so-called "Green Movement," these discussions have gained broader dimensions to the extent that we have witnessed the emergence of a specific discourse regarding the analysis of concepts of power and violence. However, the fundamental weight of this discourse has been related to the legitimacy or illegitimacy of violent struggle and resistance against the ruling political power, such that it has not been able to transcend traditional prevailing discussions and has fallen short in addressing and defining various aspects of power and violence, especially from contemporary postmodern, post-structuralist, and post-colonial perspectives.
The traditional definition of power as the authority of rulers imposes significant limitations on the process of analyzing power. One of the most fundamental of these limitations is the disregard for the role and relationship of knowledge on one hand and the role of "scholars and thinkers" on the other in shaping power relations. According to Michel Foucault, understanding power is incomprehensible and meaningless without the close relationship between knowledge and power. The significance of this relationship is such that Foucault uses the combined term "power-knowledge" instead of the word power. From his perspective, power always operates in a circular process in a deep relationship with knowledge. This process draws support from social institutions and governmental and non-governmental systems and manages to present a consistently directed and specific discourse concerning various political, social, cultural, historical, religious, educational, and even scientific conditions and dimensions through the exercise of power obtained. During this process of "discourse formation," interpretations and narratives that lack the backing of powerful individuals, groups, and institutions do not have the chance to emerge and remain as marginal and peripheral discourses, such as the literature produced in "informal" languages and the narratives of marginalized groups about history, nation, homeland, and so forth.
Overall, postmodern power is power that cannot be defined outside the concept of knowledge. It may not be without reason that Iranian intellectuals have shown little inclination towards this definition of power, as this understanding of power clearly reveals their share in following systems that violate human rights, legitimizing linguistic colonialism and the suppression of non-Persian languages, committing acts of crime and spiritual and intellectual violence against non-Persian ethnicities, and presenting elitist and authoritarian narratives of history, homeland, nation, national identity, national culture, official language, official gender, and so forth. Verbal violence, along with the violence hidden in "silence," are two intertwined and prominent faces of the epistemic violation of the rights of "the Other."
 |
| "Education in one's mother tongue is a right for everyone." |
For example, Dr. Ramin Jahanbegloo is one of the few Iranian intellectuals who has played a significant role in promoting a discourse of non-violence, especially in recent years. However, this same Jahanbegloo has maintained a deafening silence regarding language rights, collective rights, educational rights, and the right to self-determination for the peoples residing in Iran. With this meaningful silence, he commits what Jacques Derrida refers to as "the worst of violences," which Pierre Bourdieu calls "symbolic violence." Imagine someone who claims to be a prophet of non-violent struggle, yet through his silence and concealment, becomes the perpetrator of "the violence of silence" and "symbolic crimes." How can he, for instance, speak of "non-violence" when, throughout his famous lecture “How Can One Be Iranian Today?”, he does not even once mention the ethnic and linguistic diversity of the various peoples of Iran? In an academic lecture that focuses on "Iranian identity," how can one discuss without addressing ethnic, linguistic, and national diversity in the geography of Iran? Is he not aware that this very silence and lack of reference constitutes one of the most disturbing forms of violence?
From Derrida's perspective, the primary and fundamental violence lies in the violation of dignity and honor: the honor that arises from the power of "self-reading and self-identification"; the dignity that comes from people's ability to determine and define their own names and identities. Accordingly, Derrida considers a significant part of the categorizations and classifications of Claude Lévi-Strauss to be an epistemic crime and a form of "primary violence," particularly where Lévi-Strauss, indifferent to the language and speech of indigenous tribes in Brazil, immerses himself in the construction of "anthropological" theories without hesitation to invent and impose names and identities on the natives. Derrida regards this type of violence as "bad" violence and compares it to an even "worse" type, which is the violence born from silence and passivity in the face of oppression and inequality—ethnic, linguistic, sexual, cultural, class-based, and so forth.
Michel Foucault, however, finds the reflection of exclusionary and verbal/silencing violence in the famous Cartesian outlook: "I think, therefore I am!" From Foucault's perspective, those who do not think and those who are deemed insane are excluded from this so-called Enlightenment and rational world of Descartes. This marks the beginning of a violence that entirely envelops the era of Enlightenment, even keeping successive generations of humanity tainted by its original sin.
Continuing the examination of the "French tradition," Dr. Asgharzadeh once again emphasized the prominent role of the renowned French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, stating how Bourdieu, in his studies and observations, has attempted to reconcile the concepts of base and superstructure in Marx and to demonstrate their potential for transformation into one another. According to this French sociologist, economic/material capital and various forms of cultural, social, and symbolic capital are always subject to change and transformation into one another. In this way, social inequalities in various societies, particularly through educational systems, are maintained and continuously reproduced.
Relation of the Mentioned Sections to Current Issues in Azerbaijan
Dr. Asgharzadeh concluded his remarks by stating: "The time has passed when issues such as the realization of language rights can be labeled as non-political. The concepts of language and culture are inherently political, and numerous experiences from various parts of the world testify to the claim that language and culture have a close relationship with politics and power."
To formalize the Turkish language in Iran, we must at least establish a federal system. This federal system should accomplish three essential tasks:
1. Establish a national/local government in Azerbaijan;
2. Through this government, elevate the Turkish language to the status of a medium of education in Azerbaijan and Turkish-speaking regions;
3. Transform the Turkish language into the language of employment.
Only by achieving these three fundamental factors can Azerbaijanis and Turks in Iran hope to preserve their mother tongue within the geography of Iran. Otherwise, any expectation would be nothing more than daydreaming and idealism.
Link to the original text: https://shahrvand.com/archives/25031