Question
Language and Communication in ethnic conflicts
how can language and communication be utilized in the resolution of ethnic conflicts to bring about peace, and how does it affect the emergence of conflicts and ethnic conflicts in particular.
All Answers (15)
-
the emergence of conflicts and etnic conflicts is manifest in the oral Story of 'the Slaughterer' in Andean Region. See mein Diss.'el relato del pishtaco en el Callejón de Huaylas', 1990. -
@Sisinio...i am asking in relation to language...i am arguing that language is entangled in social activities which includes conflicts both ethnic conflicts and otherwise..language through discourse and communication verbal or non-verbal is used to incite and provoke. though in brokering peace through mediation, adjudication etc will yet be executed through the use of language..now my question is, in settling ethnic conflicts, do u think that to broker peace amongst the conflicting parties, within or outside the ethnic group, should their indigenous languages be used? which will point on the fundamental in peace making owning to the fundamental sentiment attached on ones language. -
Yes, of course, cases of bilingualism and biculturalism of the parties to the conflict I think that using the native language
facilitates the goal. -
thank you
-
but i await further explanations and ideas if any.
-
language is a double edged sword. It integrates and disintegrates depending on how it is used.As per ur subject above specifically, language is a product of society and cannot be separated from it. Thus, the sense of mere difference is languages spoken and ethic backgrounds could create enemity. Will bring on board a material. A friend is working on language and mediation. Style of dicourse , choice of words how these can make or mar communication -
People described languages status and usage in different ways that could serve their causes and ideologies. Thus politicians, educators, religious leaders, and national movements’ leaders try to influence others to view the use of language form their vantage point. For example, Cooper (1989) defines language planning as "deliberate efforts to influence the behavior of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of their language codes" (p. 45). -
the role of language in any conflict is a given. My major problem with what I have read so far is the view that the use of native languages is 'safe' - Sontyo expresses my view of it being a double edged sword. While a negotiator's proficiency may help in gaining confidence, a lack of proficiency in the opposing or 'other' language could be disastrous. In my view, a neutral language is better. If negotiation is to be projected as unbiased in identity then the packaging of that identity must also be linguistically neutral.
-
It is always this idea of "moving the center" Wa Thingo. It is hard.
-
This is exactly the topic of my work. However, it is very vague and general question. And the answer to it, however
broad and principal, requires an input from almost all major disciplines within the social science-humanities area of overlap.
For instance, the tradition of rhetoric is important, the psychology of conflict, anthropology of group-behavior, cultural and
social, the theory of negotiation, international relations, political history, etc. etc. And then of course, you have so-called the first intuitions on the relationship between language and conflict: think, for instance, of Koestler's The Ghost in the Machine, and Burling's The Talking Ape, who claim that language has no enough inherent pull to resist the drives of conflict, and Habermas's discourse ethics, or my own axiology of language, who claim that the use of language implies a commitment to
a number of values, or norms, or moral import that have a sufficient strength to contain, and perhaps positively transform, conflict.
Hope this helps!
-
i thank you for the contributions.
-
If you can speak someone's native language with a good degree of proficiency, you show respect for them. However, if each party to a conflict speaks a different language, but both know another language, like English, if they agree, then speaking English is a neutral choice as neither ethnic language is slighted. Also, often, non-native English speakers are proud of their English (as they should be) and prefer to use it as the medium of negotiation.
You have to know each party's attitude towards their native language, whether they're proficient in another language, and what language(s) they want to use in negotiations. Deciding what language to use is crucial. It's a minefield of emotions and attitudes. Each instance has to be determined by inviting participants to negotiation for their input. You can't just decide to use or not use an ethnic language, or to use or not use English or any other language. -
@Elaine: Great comment. I do, however, have a problem with your parenthetical comment " as they should" in relation to non-native users pride in their English. Could you explain why they should be proud of their English?
-
talking about proficiency as pointed out boils down to competence and performance aspect of Noam Chomsky's theories.
-
I notice many video's posted on the internet have English titled search headings. Great for me while trying to keep up on current politics, religions, and related atrocities. The problem is many of the video's where there is a lot of dialogue occurring have no translation available for what is being said. Sure I can see what is happening, but I could back a cause much much better if I could tell the whole story.
