Advertisement

When socio-political pressure is more powerful than the boss: workplace language policies by Kurds that restrict Kurdish

  • Anne SchluterEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

As interpretations of results from small-scale research sites are incomplete without consideration of the social structures that frame them (Block, in: Gardner, Martin-Jones (eds) Multilingualism, discourse and ethnography, Routledge, New York, 2012), the current study uses the theoretical lens of agency to examine the language policies of four of Istanbul’s Kurdish-owned eating establishments with respect to socio-political structures. Set in a context in which Turkish nationalist ideologies trickle down to long-standing and pervasive stigma toward Kurdish at local levels (Coşkun et al. in Scar of tongue: consequences of the ban of the use of mother tongue in education and experiences of Kurdish students in Turkey, DISA, Diyarbakır, 2011; Saraçoğlu in Kurds of modern Turkey: migration, neoliberalism, and exclusion in Turkish society, Tauris Academic Studies, New York, 2011; Polat in Crit Inq Lang Stud 8:261–288, 2011; Schluter and Sansarkan in Içduygu, Göker (eds), Rethinking migration and integration: bottom-up responses to neoliberal global challenges, The Isis Press, Istanbul, 2014), Kurdish workplaces represent rich sites for investigating the relative influence of differently scaled structures on individual free will. Based on ethnographic data collected through observations and interviews, the results, which align with Ortner’s (Anthropology and social theory: culture, power, and the acting subject, Duke University Press, Durham, 2006) and Archer’s (Being human: the problem of agency, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000, Making our way through the world: human reflexivity and social mobility, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007) conceptualizations of agency, indicate that while structures severely constrain managers’ ability to determine policy, a small number of opportunities also exist to resist these structures. In contrast to much of the literature that emphasizes the dominance of global scales in the current neoliberal era (Cf. Heller in J Socioling 7(4):473–492, 2003; Blommaert in The sociolinguistics of globalization, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010; Flubacher and Del Percio in Language, education and neoliberalism: critical studies in sociolinguistics, Multilingual Matters, Bristol, 2017; Lorente in Scripts of servitude: language, labor, migration, and transnational domestic work, Multilingual Matters, Bristol, 2017; Block in Political economy in sociolinguistics: neoliberalism, inequality and social class, Bloomsbury, London, 2018), nationally scaled structures feature most prominently. A center-periphery distinction emerges with respect to the magnitude of the nation’s influence over policy: peripherality, in agreement with Kelly-Holmes (in: Pietikäinen, Kelly-Holmes (eds) Multilingualism and the periphery, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013) and Hiss (Lang Soc 46:697–718, 2017), comes with diminished pressure to adhere to the norms of the center. These findings both underline the considerable power of Turkish national structures over individuals in this setting while indicating a small space for alternative marketplaces (Woolard in Am Ethnol 12:738–748, 1985).

Keywords

Agency Kurdish Blue-collar workplace Periphery 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author claims no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, M. S. (2007). Making our way through the world: Human reflexivity and social mobility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Block, D. (2012). Unpicking agency in sociolinguistic research with migrants. In S. Gardner & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Multilingualism, discourse and ethnography (pp. 47–60). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Block, D. (2018). Political economy in sociolinguistics: Neoliberalism, inequality and social class. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  7. Blommaert, J. (2007). Sociolinguistic scales. Intercultural Pragmatics, 4(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blommaert, J. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blommaert, J. (2015). Chronotopes, scales, and complexity in the study of language in society. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44, 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blommaert, J., Collins, J., & Slembrouck, S. (2005a). Spaces of multilingualism. Language & Communication, 25, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blommaert, J., Muyllaert, N., Huysmans, M., & Dyers, C. (2005b). Peripheral normativity: Literacy and the production of locality in a South African township school. Linguistics and Education, 16, 378–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, P. (1982). Ce que parler veut dire: l’économie des échanges linguistiques. [What speaking means: The economy of linguistic exchanges] Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
  14. Coşkun, V., Derince, M. Ş., & Uçarlar, N. (2011). Scar of tongue: consequences of the ban of the use of mother tongue in education and experiences of Kurdish students in Turkey. Diyarbakır: DISA.Google Scholar
  15. Duchêne, A., & Heller, M. (2012). Language in late capitalism: Pride and profit. New York and Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flubacher, M.-C., & Del Percio, A. (Eds.). (2017). Language, education and neoliberalism: Critical studies in sociolinguistics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  17. Giroux, H. A. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53(3), 257–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Center.Google Scholar
  19. Heller, M. (2003). Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 473–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hiss, F. (2017). Workplace multilingualism in shifting contexts: A historical case. Language in Society, 46, 697–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hornberger, N. H., & Johnson, D. C. (2007). Slicing the onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3), 509–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hult, F. (2010). Analysis of language policy discourses across the scales of space and time. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 202, 7–24.Google Scholar
  23. Içduygu, A., Romano, D., & Sirkeci, İ. (1999). The ethnic question in an environment of insecurity: The Kurds in Turkey. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(6), 991–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kelly-Holmes, H. (2013). Translation in progress: Centralizing and peripheralizing tensions in the practices of commercial actors in minority language sites. In S. Pietikäinen & H. Kelly-Holmes (Eds.), Multilingualism and the periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Li, W. (2012). Introduction to Part I: Linking local practices to wider social processes. In S. Gardner & M. Martin-Jones (Eds.), Multilingualism, discourse and ethnography (pp. 19–23). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Lorente, B. P. (2017). Scripts of servitude: Language, labor, migration, and transnational domestic work. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  27. Ortner, S. (2006). Anthropology and social theory: Culture, power, and the acting subject. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pietikäinen, S., & Kelly-Holmes, H. (2013). Introduction to multilingualism and the periphery. In S. Pietikäinen & H. Kelly-Holmes (Eds.), Multilingualism and the periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Polat, N. (2011). Examining the nature and content of L2 socialization patterns: Attainment of a native-like Turkish accent by Kurds. Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 8, 261–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Radikal. (2011). Caz festivalinde Kürtçe şarkı söyleyen Aynur yuhalandı [Kurdish singing Aynur brought down at the Jazz Festival]. 16 July. http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/caz-festivalinde-kurtce-sarki-soyleyen-aynur-yuhalandi-1056494/. Accessed 12 Apr 2017.
  31. Radikal. (2014). Kürtçe konuştuğu için’ 10 saniyede linç edilmiş!. [Lynched in ten seconds for speaking Kurdish!]. 13 November. http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/kurtce-konustugu-icin-10-saniyede-linc-edilmis-1229771/. Accessed 20 Mar 2017.
  32. Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 401–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sakr, N. (2002). Satellite realms: Transnational television, globalization, and the Middle East. London: I.B. Taurus.Google Scholar
  34. Saraçoğlu, C. (2011). Kurds of modern Turkey: Migration, neoliberalism, and exclusion in Turkish society. New York, NY: Tauris Academic Studies.Google Scholar
  35. Schluter, A., & Sansarkan, M. (2014). Language choice as a function of power and solidarity in the Istanbul workplace. In A. Içduygu & Z. G. Göker (Eds.), Rethinking migration and integration: Bottom-up responses to neoliberal global challenges (pp. 127–175). Istanbul: The Isis Press.Google Scholar
  36. Turgut, T. A. (2015). Telefonda Kürtçe konuşuyor’ diye öldürüldü [Killed when he said he was speaking Kurdish on the phone] 7 July. Evrensel News. https://www.evrensel.net/haber/260129/telefonda-kurtce-konusuyor-diye-olduruldu. Accessed 28 Mar 2017.
  37. Umut Gazetesi. (2015). Kürtçe şarkı söylediği için öldürüldü, emniyet yalanlıyor [Killed for singing in Kurdish, Police lie], 25 October. http://umutgazetesi2.org/kurtce-sarki-soyledigi-icin-olduruldu-emniyet-yalanliyor/. Accessed 25 Mar 2017.
  38. Urry, J. (2007). Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  39. Woolard, K. (1985). Language variation and cultural hegemony: Toward an integration of sociolinguistic and social theory. American Ethnologist, 12, 738–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EnglishThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHung Hom, KowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations