Nation, Religion, and Language Ideology: The Case of Postcolonial Bangladesh

Shaila Shams, Simon Fraser University

Abstract

Drawing on language ideology (Irvine & Gal, 2000; Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994) as an analytical lens, I conduct a historical analysis of the sociocultural and political developments that led to the construction of Bangladesh as a nation-state and that have influenced people’s attitudes and beliefs toward certain languages. I argue that analyzing the construction of language ideology is important, not only for the Bangladeshi context, but also in Bangladeshi diasporic communities, to understand language practices that have been shaped by the sociopolitical and ideological developments in their home country. Immigrants’ language practices play a significant role in their language learning and settlement in the host society. Though Bangla language is at the heart of Bangladeshi nationalism (Kabir,1987), it is the শুদ্ shuddho (correct/standard) Bangla that is inculcated in the nation-building discourse. Despite nationalistic fervor around Bangla, in Bangladesh the English language has more importance in terms of functionality, power, and status. Additionally, Arabic is considered as a holy language in Muslim-majority Bangladesh. These ideological characterizations of the three languages index the identity of their users and shape their language practices and beliefs. Thus, analyzing the historical forces that contributed to the construction of the language ideologies can shed light on the language practices and language learning of Bangladeshi Bengali immigrants and their settlement.

Résumé

La nation, la religion et l’idéologie linguistique : le cas de Bangladesh post-colonial

Inspirée de l’idéologie linguistique (Irvine & Gal, 2000; Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994) en tant que cadre théorique, je mène une analyse historique des développements socioculturels et politiques qui ont donné naissance à la construction du Bangladesh comme état-nation, et qui ont formé les attitudes et croyances de sa population envers certaines langues. Je propose une analyse de la construction de l’idéologie linguistique, que je considère primordiale, non seulement dans le contexte du Bangladesh en tant que pays, mais aussi dans le cas des communautés diasporiques, dont les pratiques langagières dépendent des développements sociopolitiques et idéologiques du pays d’origine. Ces pratiques langagières jouent un rôle important quand vient le temps d’apprendre les langues et coutumes des nouvelles sociétés où ces immigrants s’installent. Quoique la langue bengalie soit au cœur du nationalisme bangladais (Kabir,1987), c’est le শুদ্ shuddho bengali (la langue dite ‘standarde’) qui soit inculqué au discours de l’édification de la nation. Malgré le lien entre la langue bengalie et la ferveur nationaliste, c’est néanmoins l’anglais qui semble valoir plus en termes de puissance, statut, et utilité. En plus, la langue arabe se traite comme langue sacrée au Bangladesh, dont la religion principale est l’islam. La compréhension sociale de ces trois langues indexe les identités des locuteurs et aide à façonner leurs pratiques langagières et leurs croyances. Une analyse des forces historiques qui ont contribué à la construction des idéologies linguistiques au Bangladesh peut alors nous faire mieux comprendre les pratiques langagières et les idéologies associées à l’apprentissage d’autres langues pour les peuples bangladais immigrants, concernant leur intégration dans leurs nouveaux pays d’accueil.

Keywords: Language ideology, Bangladesh, immigrants, language, religion.

Introduction

This article reviews the historical development of Bangladesh as a nation-state and the role of language and religion in the characterization of the state in order to understand the language practices of Bangladeshi immigrants in Canada. I adopt a language ideology framework (Heath, 1989; Irvine & Gal, 1985, 2000; Kroskrity et al., 1992; Woolard & Schieffelin, 1994) to critically examine relevant historical forces, their development, and their impact on the language practices of Bangladeshi immigrants in Canada. My broader research aims to explore the language learning experiences, language practices and settlement experiences of skilled Bangladeshi Bangla-speaking Muslim immigrants and how their ethnolinguistic–religious identity intersects with their integration in Canada. My language and learning epistemology has poststructural and sociocultural underpinnings. Drawing on a poststructural conceptualization of language (Bourdieu, 1991), I see language as a marker of the accumulated capitals of its speakers that signifies the embedded power relations among them. Drawing on a sociocultural theory of learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), I see learning not only as a cognitive process, but also as a socially situated activity that requires learners’ participation in practices determined by their access to communities. In this view of language and learning, learners are social agents who bring their own perceptions and attitudes toward language(s) that are shaped by their language ideologies; therefore, understanding the language learning and practices of Bangladeshi immigrants requires insight into the perceptions and attitudes toward language(s) that shape them. Understanding perceptions and attitudes calls for a critical study of the ideologies associated with the languages in the repertoire of Bangla-speaking Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants; such ideologies are a product of historical, sociocultural, and political phenomena.

In this article, I examine the historical background, development, and birth of Bangladesh as a nation-state; the intertwining nature of language and religion in the politics of the region; and the development of the religious and linguistic identities of the Bangladeshi Bangla-speaking population of Islamic faith. I then analyze how and why language ideology serves as an appropriate lens to understand the language practices of Bangladeshi immigrants.

Immigrants and Language

Proficiency in the host country language is an essential immigration criterion and is considered by some scholars a requirement for successful social and economic integration into the host society (e.g., Adamuti-Trache, 2012; Ali & Alam, 2015; Boyd, 1990; Boyd & Cao, 2009; Chiswick & Miller, 1988; Derwing & Waugh, 2012). Despite the importance of host-language proficiency for immigrants, very few scholars have explored the language learning and integration process of skilled immigrants (Giampapa & Canagarajah 2017; Han, 2007; Victoria, 2017). Being second-language (L2) speakers of English, Bangladeshis in Canada face language issues while navigating and integrating into Canadian society. In fact, Bangladeshis are unfavourably positioned compared to other South Asians in Canada (Agarwal, 2013; BIES Report, 2013; Ghosh, 2014). Bangladeshis mostly come to Canada within the skilled migration category, meaning they have the required educational and professional experience and linguistic abilities. However, according to a 2013 research report by the Bengali Information and Employment Services (BIES) in Toronto, Bangladeshi immigrants identified lack of English language skills as a significant obstacle in seeking employment in Canada. This ultimately impacts their career related decisions and trajectories. The present study demonstrates that the language-related experience of skilled immigrants is a complex phenomenon that requires careful study. I aim to understand how Bangladeshi immigrants learn English upon immigration and what their attitudes are towards both learning English and the language itself. These underlying beliefs and perceptions toward language and language learning can be explored through the lens of language ideology.

Language Ideology

Woolard and Schieffelin (1994), in their review of existing scholarly work on language and ideologies, mentioned that, although research related to language and ideology had been dominant in the fields of cultural studies, anthropology, and sociolinguistics, studies on ideologies of language were only recently becoming a field of inquiry. Twenty-seven years later, in an increasingly globalized context, it is even more important to critically engage with the field of language ideology. Mass migration from periphery to core countries, from postcolonial regions to the colonial powers, increasing influx of refugees, rising capitalism in the Global South, new technologies, and changing political scenarios all have profound impacts on people’s lives at many levels, including individual language practices, mobility, access, and meaningful participation as social agents. On the one hand, the necessity for effective communication among different language speakers, especially in immigrant-receiving countries in the Global North, such as Canada, has increased. On the other hand, the rising importance of English serves to strengthen its linguistic, cultural, and political hegemony over other languages, both locally and globally (Kachru,1985; Pennycook,1994; Phillipson, 1992). Also, Blommaert (2003) argues that globalization does not simply reinforce the top-down spread of English, but also suggests the presence of a local niche that accepts English as a resource to be included in the users’ repertoire.

The combination of these factors, such as migration, sociopolitical development around the world, the rise of neoliberalism, and the increasing polarization of ideologies and politics, impacts not only language policies within a national boundary, but also has influences on a global level. Thus, when L2 speakers of English immigrate to English speaking countries, they bring their attitudes and perceptions toward the dominant language of communication and the underlying ideology(ies) that have been shaped historically by the superior status of English. Also, the languages in L2 speakers’ repertoires are important constructs within their identities. It is therefore important to understand the language practices and associated ideologies of L2 speakers in order to explore their settlement as immigrants.

This article is part of broader research where I aim to explore the language learning, language practices, and settlement experiences of Bangladeshi immigrants in Canada with a focus on how their ethnolinguistic and religious identities intersect with their language learning and settlement. Bangladeshi immigrants are an underrepresented group in sociolinguistic research in North America, especially in Canada (Zaman & Habib, 2018). To understand the language learning and language practices of Bangladeshi immigrants, it is important to examine the language ideologies that dominate such learning and practices. In the social view of language, linguistic forms are markers of their users’ social identity, and therefore, represent the “broader cultural images of people and activities” (Irvine & Gal, 2000, p.37). Linguistic differences, therefore, index distinctions not only in language, but also in the values, beliefs, and practices of social groups. Thus, it is suggested that language ideologies reveal the origin and impact of linguistic differences on users’ practices and the subsequent implications for society. Woolard and Schieffelin (1994) stated that critical analysis of language ideologies is important, as they “serve as a mediating link between social structures and forms of talk” (p. 55). Therefore, studying the language ideology of a particular society reveals its dominant power structures and the manifestation of those structures in everyday communication. Language ideologies also “envision and enact links of language to group and personal identity, to aesthetics, to morality and to epistemology” (p. 56) and therefore shape individuals’ ways of being in and understanding the social world through their own language use. Consequently, I understand language ideology as how groups of people view the language(s) of different social groups and their users, including their own, and, vice versa, how language ideologies impact people’s attitudes and social relationships and reproduce power relations. This brings us to the question of the construction of ideologies and the historical and political forces that contribute. The authors cited above stress the importance not only of studying language ideology, but also of examining the forces dominant in constructing those ideologies.

Ideologies associated with language(s) are products of complex socio-historical and political processes that require close examination of the forces that shape language forms today. Woolard (1992) claimed that language ideology and “social, discursive and linguistic practices” (p. 235) have a dialectical relationship of influence with each other; this relationship also reproduces and represents the power relations and linguistic politics in a given society. As mentioned before, this article is part of a broader project on skilled immigrants from Bangladesh. A language ideology lens will help me to gain a nuanced understanding of the language practices and settlement of this inadequately researched community. In this article, I take a look back in history to examine the social, cultural, and political development that led to the creation of today’s Bangladesh as a nation-state. I also examine the forces and phenomena that have been profound influences on the culture and practices of the Bangla-speaking Bangladeshi Muslim population. Through this analysis, I aim to provide a glimpse into the historical development of the ideologies associated with certain languages in Bangladesh today and how they influence the language practices and social activities of Bangladeshis at home and abroad. I must mention here that I focus only on the Bangla-speaking Muslim population, partially because of my own ethnolinguistic and religious affiliation with this population. A focus on other religions and ethnic languages of Bangladesh is outside the scope and focus of this study. I also believe that it is necessary to study this ethnolinguistic and religious minority group of people and their settlement in North America as part of the backdrop of the rise in Islamophobia globally (Kazi, 2021; Kumar, 2012).

Historical Background

The following sections shed light on the history of the Bengal region and today’s Bangladesh from pre-colonial times, the spread of Islam, the way local people have interacted with Islam, the rise of nationalism and religious identity, and the construction and implications of language ideologies.

Present-day Bangladesh

Bangladesh is a Muslim majority country and one of the most densely populated countries in the world, home to almost 170 million people (Statista, 2021). Bangladesh is conceived to be and is projected as a monolingual country, drawing on the conceptualization of শুদ্ধ [correct] Bangla as “standard Bangla.” The Bangla language is associated with Bengali nationalism in Bangladesh. This nationalist zeal and the equating of “correct” with “standard” marginalizes the many varieties of Bangla and their speakers within Bangladesh. Needless to say, “standard” Bangla not only marginalizes other varieties of Bangla, but plays an imperialist role in marginalizing ethnolinguistic minorities. While the Bangla language is linked to Bengali nationalism, English enjoys a higher status in postcolonial Bangladesh (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007). Also, Arabic has a special position among the Muslims of Bangladesh, being the holy language of Islam, even though only a few Bangladeshis understand it. The Bangla language spoken in Bangladesh features many Perso-Arabic words (Faquire, 2010, Rahim, 1992; Uddin, 2006) due to the history dating back to the start of Islamic civilization in the subcontinent and in Bengal. While Persian vocabulary has seeped into the Bangla language for everyday activities, Arabic has a higher status among Muslims and has distinct functions in daily prayers and religious activities. These Perso-Arabic linguistic forms characterize language practices, especially the practices of the Muslim population, such as exchanging greetings in Arabic. Many Bangla-speaking Muslims also commonly intersperse Arabic words that have religious affiliations in their language. Thus, in Bangladesh, it is possible to guess a person’s religious affiliation through their language practices. This reflects the fact that religion is an important category in constructing language ideologies to understand the linguistic differences between social groups. It also shows the significance of nationhood and nationalism, as well as colonization and globalization, as relevant categories of ideological constructions within each language. According to Friedrich (1989), religion and nationhood are two important ideological constructs. These two constructs have both shaped and been shaped by the politics of the region, contributing to the constructed ideologies that dominate the beliefs and practices of social groups.

Thus, Bangla, English, and Arabic have distinct positions in Bangladesh among different social groups. Understanding the positions and ideologies associated with these languages requires a historical analysis. This is carried out in the subsequent sections.

History of the Bengal Region

To understand present-day Bangladesh, it is imperative to look into the history that has sewn the social fabric of the country. It is impossible to study the history of Bengal without considering the various empires that have ruled the region and the religions that have flourished in each empire. These various empires and religions left an indelible mark on the people of Bengal and its social, cultural, and political composition, and formed the nation as it is today. In fact, the different empires or eras in Bengal are marked by the distinct religious philosophies and cultural traditions brought by the rulers. Therefore, religion is an integral aspect of the history of Bengal, as it has influenced and shaped local life significantly.

Present-day Bangladesh is a relatively new nation-state; it marked itself as an independent country on the world map in only 1971, after gaining independence from Pakistan. However, the region, commonly documented as the Bengal region, has a long-standing history dating back thousands of years (Eaton, 1993). Bangladesh is part of the Indian subcontinent––composed of present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh––which was under British rule for almost 200 years (1757–1947). The subcontinent gained freedom from British colonial rule in 1947. It was partitioned in the same year, based on the “Two-Nation Theory” that viewed Hindus and Muslims as separate communities and led to the birth of a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan (Jalal, 1995). In 1947, Pakistan was comprised of two geographically separated regions: West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan) and East Pakistan, which was also known as East Bengal (present-day Bangladesh). West and East Pakistan were not only geographically separated, but also had ethnolinguistic and cultural differences (Uddin, 2006). The differences and turmoil between West and East Pakistan grew, resulting in the 1971 War of Liberation when East Pakistan gained independence from West Pakistan and Bangladesh was born as a nation-state.

This small snippet of history provides only a partial picture of the flux of different languages, cultures, religions, and their impact on the politics and ideological characterization of the region. It is necessary to delve into history and analyze the sociocultural and religious trajectories to understand the roles and ideologies associated with languages in the subcontinent and, more specifically, in Bangladesh, and their influences on Bangladeshi Muslims’ language practices.

The Pre-Colonial Age (before 1757)

The Ruling Dynasties

The Bengal region was divided into West Bengal, with Kolkata at its centre in present-day India, and East Bengal, which is present-day Bangladesh. Before the 8th Century (Common Era), Bengal was comprised of many local kings and their kingdoms (Islam, 2011). It was during the 8th-Century Pala dynasty, established by the Buddhists of the land, that the region came under one kingdom. The Pala dynasty ruled for a few centuries  until the rise of the Sena dynasty in the 11th century. The Sena dynasty was a Hindu dynasty; the rulers came to Bengal from Karnataka, South India. According to Islam (2011), the religious harmony that was achieved during the Buddhist Pala dynasty was disrupted by the Hindu rulers of the Sena dynasty. Thus, the Bengal region was initially under the rule of Buddhist and Hindu rulers, with the majority local population following Buddhism, Hinduism, and indigenous religions until the 12th century, when Bengal came under Muslim rule. Muslim rule was established in Bengal in 1204 when Iqtiak Uddin Muhammad Bakhtiar Kjilji, a Turkish Muslim warrior, conquered Bengal (Uddin, 2006). After that time, Bengal was led by different Muslim rulers. Islam flourished under the Muslim rulers and reached its peak when Bengal came under the dominion of the Mughal empire in the early 17th century (Uddin, 2006). The Mughals continued to rule Bengal, and indeed the entire Indian subcontinent, until the rise of British colonial power. It is important to mention here that the Muslim rulers of Bengal were of foreign descent, including Arabs, Turks, Abyssinians, and Afghans (Uddin, 2006). The inter-religious harmonious nature of Bengal that was disrupted by the Sena dynasty was restored during the Muslim empire (Dasgupta, 2004; Islam, 2011). This short historical overview chronicles the different ruling periods in Bengal and explains how deeply religion is entrenched in the sociopolitical developments of Bengal and in the lives of its people.

The Spread of Islam

Islam came to India and to Bengal through foreign Muslim conquerors. Today, after the Arabs, Bengali Muslims are the third largest ethnic population of Islamic faith in the world (Eaton, 1993). Though the ruling power remained in the hands of the foreign-descended Muslims, the religion spread widely in rural areas among the locals in Eastern Bengal (Bangladesh). Eaton (1993) claims that this wide spread of Islam among working-class people in the rural areas in Eastern/East Bengal deserves careful study, as such an extensive spread of Islam is not seen in other parts of India, including West Bengal. There are a number of theories, such as migration theory and “religion of the sword theory” (Uddin, 2006), that have attempted to explain this spread of Islam in Bangladesh, but they either fall short of evidence, or they do not adequately explain the phenomenon. Eaton (1993) argues that Islam did not rise in Bengal because of the ruling class Muslims, but was spread by the Sufis, who played an instrumental role in spreading Islam to remote areas in East Bengal—a low-lying land with huge bodies of water and dense forests considered almost uninhabitable. The early Sufis were of foreign descent too; however, they managed to connect with the local working-class. The ruling Muslim class of foreign descent consisted of administrators, traders, leaders, and orthodox believers. They pursued a Perso-Islamic lifestyle, and developed Persian and Arabic literature (Dasgupta, 2004). They were the Ashrafs—the aristocratic Persian and/or Arabic speaking Muslim class in Bengal—whereas the local Bangla-speaking population who converted to Islam were considered the Atrafs, who consisted mostly of the rural peasant and artisan classes (Sharif, 1987; Uddin, 2006). Thus, there was a very clear distinction between the Ashrafs and Atrafs, depending on their ethnicity, language, class, and lifestyle in Bengal (Uddin, 2006). Though the Ashrafs considered their culture superior to that of the locals in Bengal, they also assimilated with the local culture, which then resulted in the intermingling of Perso-Arabic culture with Bengali indigenous culture (Uddin, 2006 ). Also, there was intermarriage between the two classes. The later Ashrafs, being born on Bengal soil, could not continue to distinguish themselves from the locals (Uddin, 2006).

Though the increasing conversion accelerated the growth of the Muslim population, it did not come into conflict with the existing religious beliefs in the region. In fact, a syncretic cultural motif was developed with the coexistence of different religions and practices. The converted local rural Muslims’ practices were markedly different from those of the Urban Ashraf Muslims. The Ashrafs’ practices involved Arabic and Middle Eastern norms. The Atrafs incorporated their local norms and practices into their newly found belief. Thus, they practiced an indigenized Islam independent from Perso-Arabic influence and different from what was followed in the northern parts of the subcontinent (Sharif, 1987). This tradition later became a source of criticism on the legitimacy of the Muslimness of the Bengali Muslims (Uddin, 2006). This history marks the beginning of a gap between the different social groups in Bengal, as well as a potential divergence from Middle Eastern religious practices, and establishes an indigenized Islam practised by the people of Bengal.

In pre-colonial India, including Bengal, Persian was the language of the court and the elite during Muslim rule. In the pre-Muslim era, Sanskrit was the high-status language used in literature and at court. Bangla was never considered a legitimate language by the elite class and was spoken mostly by working-class people, which can be taken as an indication of the position and status of Bangla and its speakers in the society.

British Colonial Era (1757–1947)

The impact of colonial rule on the sociocultural and political history of the subcontinent is vast. Languages and religions were not exempt from the politics of the colonial powers. The British viewed Hindus and Muslims as “two separate communities with distinct political interests” (Uddin, 2006, p. 48). Consequently, different strategies were developed by the colonizers to interact with and govern the people of these two faiths. Christian missionaries also had different strategies for Hindus and Muslims to convert them to Christianity, which was presented to the locals as equivalent to modernization in India (Uddin, 2006, pp. 47-49). The missionaries spread Christianity; the initial negative responses by the local Hindus and Muslims to the conversion invitation soon turned into “internal communal debate” (Uddin, 2006, p. 49). This division between Hindus and Muslims was one of the deciding factors leading to partition and the formation of India and Pakistan as nation states. Since then, religion has been a determining force in subcontinental politics.

In 1837, English replaced Persian as the language of the court in British India. Colonial rulers used local languages for government administration purposes (Pennycook, 1994). Thus, Urdu—written in Perso-Arabic script, which derives its vocabulary predominantly from Arabic and Persian—became the language of governance in most regions in Northern India. Though Urdu was spoken by both Muslims and non-Muslims of those regions, the language gradually became associated with Muslims specifically, taking on a “cultural symbol” status for the formation of Muslim identity during the period of British rule in the subcontinent (Uddin, 2006, p. 59). Due to this iconization (Irvine & Gal, 2000) of Urdu, Muslims started identifying with it, while Hindus began to identify with the Hindi language, which is written in Devanagari script and derives its vocabulary from Sanskrit. Along the same vein, Bangla was seen as a language of the Hindu community due to its subcontinental roots. This construction of Urdu as an Islamic language for the Muslims in the subcontinent further marginalized the Bangla speaking uneducated Muslims in rural Eastern Bengal, the majority of whom belonged to the working class (Kabir, 1987; Rahim, 1992). Though Bengali Muslims considered Urdu an Islamic language, their day-to-day spoken language was Bangla. This disassociation from Urdu alienated Bengali Muslims from the subcontinental Muslim community (Uddin, 2006, pp. 108–109). Meanwhile, English became the dominant language for education and work opportunities under British rule, a legacy that has become even stronger in today’s globalized context.

Tension between Hindu and Muslim communities in Bengal was fueled during British rule, and both communities took part in the struggle for independence to realize their dreams of separate lands for Hindu and Muslim communities. Thus, colonial rule ended in 1947 and, out of the Two-Nation Theory, India and Pakistan were born.

In this section, I have portrayed the colonial rules and politics and the sociopolitical and linguistic situation of the subcontinent before 1947. The next section elaborates on the region’s history after the 1947 Partition.

The Post-Partition Pakistan Era (1947–1971)

Though Pakistan was born out of the concept of “one religion, one country,” tension soon erupted between Urdu-speaking West Pakistan and Bangla-speaking East Pakistan (previously, East Bengal). It was religion that united the West and East Pakistanis; however, it was language that led to their division. West Pakistan was the capital of undivided Pakistan. The West Pakistani rulers wanted Urdu to be the state language of newly formed Pakistan, as Urdu was the cultural symbol of the Muslims of the subcontinent. Bengali Muslims naturally objected to the proposal; Bangla language speakers were far more numerous in East Pakistan than their Urdu speaking counterparts. In addition, Urdu was regarded by Bengali Muslims as the language of the elite, whereas Bangla was the language of the working-class Bengali Muslims. Also, there were people from other faiths, and Bengal has had a tradition of cultural diversity, tolerance, and brotherhood (Islam, 2018, p.20). The then-East Pakistan therefore proposed to have both Urdu and Bangla as state languages, a proposal which was turned down vehemently by the then-West Pakistani rulers (Alam, 2007). There was even an attempt to “de-Sanskritize” Bangla and “Arabicize” it, as Sanskrit was identified as the language of the Hindu community, and thus, Bangla—being derived from Prakrit (an ancient subcontinental language dating back to the Sanskrit era) and written in a script derived from Devanagari, which was used to write Sanskrit and Hindi—was seen as a Hindu language (Uddin, 2006. pp.108-125). As a result, the Muslims of East Bengal (present-day Bangladesh) were perceived as being less Muslim than their non-Bengali counterparts, because they spoke Bangla. After the 1947 Partition, the western wing of newly-formed Pakistan was rife with the perception that the Bengali ethnicity and Bangla-speaking Muslims in East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh) were different from their non-Bengali Muslim West Pakistan countrymen (Uddin, 2006, pp. 124-125). The complex political history of the subcontinent, already divided on the surface issue of religion, and the subsequent division of West and East Pakistan had the effect of politicizing the languages and religions of the region. After that time, linguistic differences between the Hindu and Muslim communities in Bangladesh began to  index their different social identities. Religion, thus, became a politicized category for constructing ideological characterizations of language forms, to differentiate between the language practices of the different communities.

East Pakistanis (Bengalis) protested the cultural and linguistic aggression of West Pakistan and the “purgation” of the Bangla language. The proposal to have both Urdu and Bangla as state languages was turned down by West Pakistani rulers. On February 21st, 1952, police fired on a student-organized procession in Dhaka. This event marked the foundation of Bangla nationalism, indicated a distinct Bengali identity, and eventually led to the War of Liberation of 1971 (Azim, 2002; Uddin, 2006, pp.125–126). During the Pakistani era, due to unresolved state language issues, English remained the language of communication between East and West Pakistan, and thus, colonialism’s legacy was carried forward. The War of Liberation  was an important historical event, not only because it laid the foundation for the liberation of Bangladesh, but also because it invoked nationalism based on language as an ideological construction of Bangladeshi/Bengali identity. In this struggle for Bengali identity based on the Bangla language, Bangla, in Bourdieu’s (1991) words, becomes an “object of mental representation” (p. 220) that created a category to imagine, perceive, and recognize Bangla speakers as a distinct community within a separate territory, thereby conceptualizing a nation as a geographical boundary within which people speak one language. Thus, the ideology of nationalism became associated with the Bangla language within an imagined nation state.

Religious perception and segregation, ethnic and linguistic differences, and economic and cultural exploitation by West Pakistan led to separation from Pakistan and gave birth to Bangladesh as an independent nation-state in 1971 (Islam, 2018). This struggle for independence also meant that East Bengal, for the first time in many centuries, regained sovereignty and the right to self-governance. The foundational stone of this newly liberated land was laid by Bengali ethnicity and Bangla nationalism, rooted in the Bangla language (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007; Sultana, 2014). This review of history suggests how religion has been politicized during the British and Pakistani colonial eras and how religion and nationalism as ideological constructs have become intertwined with the languages of the subcontinent.

A review of these historical events established the purpose and significance of using a language ideology framework to understand immigrants’ language practices in the diaspora. Since sociopolitical and historical developments in the Bengal region, intertwined with language and religion, have had such a profound impact on the lives of the people, it is important to review and understand these developments in order to explore Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants’ attitudes and perceptions towards languages in a very different context, where they belong to minority communities.

People’s Republic of Bangladesh (1971–present): Balancing Religion and Secularism in the Construction of the Nation

Bangladesh, as a separate nation state, was recognized on December 16th, 1971 after a nine-month war with former West Pakistan. The ideological structure and characterization of the new nation drew from Bengali ethnicity and the Bangla language, while maintaining a secular stance as one of the founding principles of Bangladesh. It is important to mention here that secularism in Bangladesh is conceived as being inclusive of all religions, contrary to the Western conceptualization of secularism that attempts to exclude religion from public life (Brubaker, 2013). Bangla became the state language of independent Bangladesh. The Bangla-centered ethnic and linguistic ideology of Bangladesh lent it a monolingual character (Sultana, 2014), and excluded the ethnic minorities of Bangladesh who are not Bengali, do not speak Bangla, and are mostly followers of indigenous faiths. Also, there are many varieties of Bangla spoken in different regions of the country. The standard variety is that spoken by the urban educated middle-class in Dhaka, the capital; it is also the official language, which marginalizes regional vernaculars. A study by Hasan and Rahman (2014) on the standard Bangla language ideology demonstrates the higher status of standard Bangla over the regional varieties.

Over the years, Bangladeshi nationalism has evolved, balancing between secularism and the religiosity crafted by political leaders. Through changes in power and government, the secular identity of Bangladesh that was a founding principle during the war of independence has been lost, and a Muslim national identity has gained prominence. The rise of the Muslim nationalistic identity can be attributed to the country’s political turmoil and the increasing influence of globalization that opened doors for an Arab- and Middle-East-oriented Islam in Bangladesh. Thus, the struggle between religion and culture in Bangladesh remains an inconclusive one that has been a source of “confusing tensions and uneasy stalemate between Muslim nationalistic Bangladeshi identity and the more secular, religiously and culturally pluralist Bengali identity” (Islam, 2018, p. 20). The urban, western-educated secular intellectuals failed to understand the religious sentiment of the majority by disassociating Islam from Bengali identity in their dominant discourses, which has further polarized the issues around language, ethnicity, and religion in the nation-building discourse of Bangladesh. This has perpetuated the confusion that Islam (2018) aptly captured in the above quote. These political and sociocultural developments contributed to language ideologies that impact the language practices of the different social groups in Bangladesh.

Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Languages

The various contesting factors in the history of the subcontinent and of Bangladesh moulded attitudes and perceptions toward the different languages that are used in this region. I now discuss the languages that have a dominant impact on the identity and practices of Bangladeshi people, especially the Muslim population.

English enjoys a position of status and power in postcolonial Bangladesh, even though the country seems to lack a clear language policy. Though English is used extensively in education and the private sector in Bangladesh, there is no explicit policy about the status of English, and it does not have official status (Hamid, 2011; Hossain & Tollefson, 2007; Rahman & Pandian, 2017). However, the attitude towards learning the English language is very positive in Bangladesh, irrespective of people’s socio-economic backgrounds (Alam, 2017; Erling, et al, 2013; Erling et al, 2012) and is not viewed as a burden from the legacy of colonial rule (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007). English is seen as a vehicle of development by the majority in Bangladesh. It is also seen as the language that symbolizes modernity, progress, and membership in the elite class. English is still a language of the local elites in postcolonial Bangladesh. It acts as a gatekeeper and is responsible for social stratification (Choudhury, 2008; Hossain & Tollefson, 2007; Imam, 2005). English is important for education in Bangladesh, to the extent that the schooling system is divided into three categories: English-medium, Bangla-medium, and Madrasa (Quranic) education, depending on the amount and quality of English taught in these schools. It should come as no surprise that the English spoken by the elite members of society is considered the most powerful and ‘correct’ version of the language. This creates an ideology that dominates people’s attitudes and beliefs, not only toward English but also toward Bangla, and that shapes their social lives.

Though the Bangla language is the foundation stone of Bengali nationalism and symbolizes Bengali culture, it holds a somewhat lower status than English. Due to the elite status of English in Bangladesh, English contributes to social inequality and furthers the gap between different social classes, marginalizing and disempowering Bangla and creating a ‘vernacular divide’ (Ramanathan, 2005). In fact, in recent years the use of English in Bangladesh, especially in the media, has grown to such an extent that the High Court had to provide a verdict to maintain the official language status of Bangla in Bangladesh and to reduce unnecessary use of English (HC rules on use of Bangla everywhere, 2014). Remember the standard Dhaka variety of Bangla is considered the official language. This standard Bangla dominates the practices of urban educated Bengalis and pushes the other regional varieties to the margin. Thus, even within the Bangla language and its use, there are social structures involved that encourage and perpetuate a specific Bangla over the other varieties and that contribute to the construction of ‘standard’ language ideology (Green, 1997). This totalizing character development of Bangla ignores the other varieties and removes them from standard language discourse, a process that Irvine and Gal (2000) named as erasure.

A distinctive feature of Bangla in Bangladesh is the presence and use of many Arabic and Persian words. This also reflects the historical and cultural composition of the population and acts as a marker of Bangladeshi Bangla-speaking Muslims identity. Arabic is considered a sacred language in Bangladesh, being the language of the holy Quran and the preferred language of Islam. Most Bangladeshi Muslims are taught to read the Quran in Arabic. However, the majority learn to read the Quran without understanding the language. Yet, respect toward the language is intact, as it is considered the language of Islam. Bengali Muslims recite Arabic verses from the Quran in their prayers and many Arabic words/phrases related to religion are commonly used by Muslims in Bangladesh in their speech. The Arabic language is important in the Madrasa education stream in Bangladesh.

Bangla, English and Arabic each have their distinct place in Bangladeshi people’s lives. While Bangla is the language of Bengali nationalism, English is equated with modernity and progress, and Arabic is important for the religious affiliation of Muslims. The accelerating pace of globalization has furthered the value of English in Bangladesh, where it has been treated as a language of power for centuries. This historical analysis reveals the background of the sociocultural, linguistic, religious, and political struggle and development in the Bengal region and today’s Bangladesh, and the forces that contributed to the construction of ideologies associated with the languages. The languages and their practices act as identity markers of the social groups, their social positions, and activities.

Language Ideology and the Bangladeshi Diasporic Community

This historical overview is necessary to understand the dominant ideological constructs that flourished in the region called Bangladesh today, as well as their affiliation with, and representations in, languages and society. As mentioned before, this article is part of a critical sociolinguistic research project where I aim to explore the language learning, language practices and settlement of Bangladeshi Bangla-speaking Muslim immigrants in Canada. Immigrants’ lived experience in Bangladesh is shaped by the dominant ideologies that are reflected through the languages. These ideologies influence their attitudes and perceptions toward languages, even after immigration. In fact, it becomes more important after immigration, as languages act as identity markers for social groups, and identity issues come to the forefront when people are away from their homeland. Language ideologies, therefore, can explain the impact of conceived differences between languages, language forms, language practices, and the social activities of their speakers. As Woolard (1992, p.137) stated, “ideology calls attention to socially situated and/or experientially driven dimensions of cognition or consciousness” and languages are vehicles through which ideologies are practised and sustained. Irvine and Gal (2000) claimed that people’s language ideologies “locate linguistic phenomena as part of, and evidence for, what they believe to be systematic behavioral, aesthetic, affective, and moral contrasts among the social groups indexed” (p. 37), suggesting that language ideologies are important constructs in shaping people’s beliefs, attitudes, and relationships with their languages, the languages of other social groups, and their language practices.

Analyzing language ideologies and people’s practices is important for my broader research questions. It is necessary to understand how Bangladeshi immigrants view the dominant languages in Canada and how their perceptions influence their language learning, settlement, and relationships within the Bangladeshi community and other communities. Canada promotes multiculturalism within a bilingual framework (Haque, 2012) and recognizes English and French as the official languages of the country, contributing to the dominant language ideologies and colonial legacies in the process. Bangladeshi immigrants, being postcolonial subjects and coming from a hierarchical society where English plays a role in social inequality, have experienced English as part of the colonial legacy in their own country. Globalization has further solidified the importance of English(es) worldwide. It is worth investigating how carrying this complex ideology associated with the English language in an English-speaking country shapes the social activities and relations of Bangladeshi immigrants. Han (2007, 2011, 2014, 2019) argues that language ideology needs to be conceptualized and examined when exploring immigrants and their social relations, language learning, and practices. She further claims that the notion of standard language ideology is paramount in L2 teaching, where learners are supposed to acquire a “native-like” proficiency. This native-like proficiency concept perpetuates the standard language ideology, where it is shown that there is a particular way of speaking English that must be attained by learners, and, therefore, places the speaker of that specific variety on the upper end of the hierarchy. This concept is found in Bangladesh as well, where English is the language of the elite. Thus, this elitist view of English, reinforced through a standard language ideology, shapes the social relations of the learners with the host society where English is the dominant language. Since language learning is a socially situated activity shaped by participation in social activities, access to participation is important. This raises questions about which language and language speakers are seen as native speakers of English, who has greater access to social networks, how they are viewed by other social groups, and how the concept of standard impacts social structures and relations. These questions bring us back to ideological queries; therefore, understanding language ideology and the forces that create it will shed light on Bangladeshi immigrants’ language practices, and social and power relations. I argue that adopting language ideology as a critical lens will enable a much-needed analysis of the attitudes and perceptions pervasive among Bangladeshi immigrants and in Canadian society when it comes to languages.

It is also important to understand how a loss of linguistic capital, along with other forms of social capital, shapes immigrants’ lives. The majority of Bangladeshi immigrants speak English as an additional language. French has no official status in Bangladesh, nor is it part of the education system, suggesting that not many Bangladeshis have skills in French. Bangla has little functional value in Canada outside the home or the Bengali community. Thus, the attitudes and feelings that Bangladeshis harbour toward the Bangla language, and how Bangla is perceived by other communities, impact the social activities and language practices of Bangladeshi immigrants.

Lastly, Bengali Muslims are likely to maintain their Arabic knowledge, as Ferguson (1982) observed that religion is key in maintaining language knowledge after immigration. The limited knowledge of Arabic among Bangla-speaking Bangladeshi Muslims, and their ideology toward the language, may have further implications for their social practices and relationships with other community members in Canada, given the political and historical characterization of the country.

Conclusion

My aim in writing this article was to explore the various forces that created the language ideologies within the historical, sociocultural, and political structures of the region named Bangladesh. Examining the construction of dominant language ideologies in Bangladesh and in Canada is necessary to understand Bangla-speaking Muslim Bangladeshi immigrants in Canada, their language practices, and the impact on their settlement. Reviewing the history of the land called Bangladesh and its ideological characterization, or lack thereof, prompted me to analyze the historical events that shaped the ideological constructs of the land and how the ideologies have become implicit in the languages and the people’s activities. Language ideologies index the social identity of different groups and explain how power relations are reproduced through language. They also explore our underlying beliefs and perceptions, not just about languages but also about their speakers. As Bucholtz (2001) argues, language ideologies include not just language, but also other identity constructs, such as race and class. Bangladeshi skilled immigrants, an ethnolinguistic and religious minority group in Canada, even after proving their English language skills in the immigration process, struggle to navigate Canadian society. Lack of language proficiency has been identified as one of the core reasons by the people themselves. I understand language learning as a social process that can be achieved through socialization, rather than as a classroom-based phenomenon. I argue, therefore, that it is essential to explore the language ideologies dominant among Bangladeshi immigrants and in Canadian society to examine the settlement trajectory of this group of immigrants. It will help us to understand skilled Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants’ language learning and language practices, how they view Canadian society and its dominant languages, how they are viewed and positioned in the society and why, and how they navigate their settlement journey in Canada.

References

Adamuti-Trache, M. (2012). Language Acquisition Among Adult Immigrants in Canada: The Effect of Premigration Language Capital. Adult Education Quarterly, 63(2), 103–126. DOI: IO.I 177/0741713612442804

Agarwal, S. K. (2013). Economic disparities among South Asian immigrants in Canada. South Asian Diaspora, 5(1), 7–34. DOI: 10.1080/19438192.2013.720514

Alam, M. S. (2017). Bangladeshi College Students’ Attitude Towards English Language Learning. British Journal of English Linguistics, 5(4), 29–40.

Alam, S. M. S. (2007). Language as political articulation: East Bengal in 1952. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 21(4), 469–487. DOI: 10.1080/00472339180000311

Ali, H. M. M., & Alam, T. N. (2015). Cultural approximation, alienation and the role of English as a second language in Canadian society. Arab World English Journal, 6(3), 275–292.

Azim, F. (2002). Language, identity, and culture. In F. Alam & F. Azim (Eds.), Politics and culture: Essays in honour of Shirajul Islam Choudhury (pp. 351–364). University of Dhaka

Bengali Information and Employment Services (BIES). (2013). A study on the status of Bangladeshi new immigrants in Ontario: Employment perspectives. BIES.

Blommaert, J. (2003). Commentary: A Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 607–623.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond. M. Adamson, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Boyd, M. (1990). Immigrant women: Language, socioeconomic inequalities, and policy issues. In S. Halli, F. Trovato, & L. Driedger (Eds.), Ethnic demography—Canadian immigrant: Racial and cultural variations (pp. 275–295). Carleton University Press.

Boyd, M. & Cao, X. (2009). Immigrant Language proficiency, earnings and policies. Canadian Studies in Population, 36(1–2), 63–86.

Brubaker, R. (2013). Language, religion and the politics of difference. Nations and Nationalism, 19(1), 1–20.

Bucholtz, M. (2001). The Whiteness of Nerds: Superstandard English and Racial Markedness. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11(1), 84–100.

Chiswick, B. & Miller, P. (1988). Earnings in Canada: The roles of immigrant generation, French ethnicity and language. Research in Population Economics, 6, 183–224.

Choudhury, R. (2008). Examining Language Learning from a Critical Perspective. Teachers College, Columbia University. Working papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 1–3.

Dasgupta, A. (2004). Islam in Bengal: Formative period. Social Scientist, 32(3/4), 30–41.

Derwing, M.T. & Waugh, E. (2012). Language Skills and the Social Integration of Canada’s Adult Immigrants. Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP) Study. Montreal, Canada.

Eaton, R.M. (1993). The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760. University of California Press.

Erling, E.J., Hamid, M.O., & Seargeant, P. (2013). Grassroots attitudes to English as a language for international development in Bangladesh. In E.J. Erling & P. Seargeant (Eds.), English and Development: Policy, Pedagogy and Globalization (pp. 88–101). Multilingual Matters.

Erling, E.J., Seargeant, P., Solly, M., Chowdhury, Q.H., & Rahman, S. (2012). Attitudes to English as a language for international development in rural Bangladesh. ELT Research Papers, 12(8), 3–22. British Council. Retrieved from https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/attitudes-english-a-language-international-development-rural-bangladesh

Faquire, A. B. M. R. K. (2010). Language Situation in Bangladesh. The Dhaka University Studies, 67(2), 63–77.

Ferguson, C. A. (1982). Religious factors in language spread. In R. L. Cooper (Ed.), Language spread: Studies in diffusion and social change (pp. 95–106). Indiana University Press.

Friedrich, P. (1989). Language, Ideology and Political Economy. American Anthropologist, 91(2), 295–312.

Ghosh, S. (2014). A Passage to Canada: The Differential Migrations of South Asian Skilled Workers to Toronto. International Migration & Integration, 15, 715–735. DOI 10.1007/s12134-013-0298-0

Giampapa, F. & Canagarajah, S. (2017). Skilled migration and global English. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(1), 1–4, DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2017.1296658

Hamid, M.O. (2011). Globalisation, English for everyone and English teacher capacity: language policy discourses and realities in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4), 289–310, DOI: 10.1080/14664208.2011.532621

Han, H (2007). Language, Religion and Immigrant Settlement: An Ethnography [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. OISE, University of Toronto, Toronto.

Han, H. (2011). Social inclusion through multilingual ideologies, policies and practices: A case study of a minority church. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(4), 383–398, DOI: 10.1080/13670050.2011.573063

Han, H. (2014). “Westerners,” “Chinese”, and/or “us”: Exploring the intersection of language, race, religion and immigrantization. Anthropology and Education Quarterly45(1), 54–70.

Han, H. (2019) Making “second generation,” inflicting linguistic injuries: An ethnography of a mainland Chinese church in Canada. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 18(1), 55–69, DOI: 10.1080/15348458.2019.1569524

Haque, E. (2012). Multiculturalism within a bilingual framework: Language, race and belonging in Canada. University of Toronto Press.

Hasan, S. M. & Rahman, A. (2004). Standard dialect ideology in Bangladesh: A field study. Language in India, 14(10), 184–197.

Heath, S. B. (1989). Language ideology. International Encyclopedia of Communications (Vol. 2), pp. 393–395, Oxford University Press.

Hossain, T. & Tollefson, J. W. (2007). Language Policy in Education in Bangladesh. In A.B.M. Tsui & J.W. Tollefson (Eds). Language Policy, Culture, and Identity in Asian Contexts (pp.241–257). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Imam, S. R. (2005). English as a Global Language and the Question of Nation Building in Bangladesh. Comparative Education, 41(4), 471–486.

Irvine, J. T. & Gal, S. (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In P. V. Kroskrity (Ed.), Regimes of language (pp. 35–83). School of American Research Press.

Islam, K. I. (2011). Historical Overview of Religious Pluralism in Bengal. Bangladesh e-journal of Sociology, 8(1), 26–33. https://bangladeshsociology.org/BEJS%208.1%20Final.pdf

Islam, M. M. (2018). Secularism in Bangladesh: An Unfinished Revolution. South Asia Research. 38 (1), 20-39. DOI: 10.1177/0262728017745383

Jalal, A. (1995). Conjuring Pakistan: History as official imagining. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 27(1), 73–89.

Kabir, M. G. (1987). Religion, Language and Nationalism in Bangladesh. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 17(4), 473–487.

Kachru. B. (1985). Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson. (Eds). English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and the Literature. (pp.11–30). Cambridge University Press.

Kazi, N . (2021). Islamophobia, Race, and Global Politics. Rowman & Littlefield.

Kroskrity, P. V., Schieffelin, B. B., & Woolard, K. A. (1992) (Eds.). Special Issue on Language Ideologies. Pragmatics, 2(3), 235–453.

Kumar, D. (2012). Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire. Haymarket Books.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Pennycook, A. (1994). The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. Longman.

Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford University Press.

Rahim, A. (1992). The political economy of English education in Muslim Bengal: 1871–1912. Comparative Education Review, 36(3), 309–321.

Rahman, M. M. & Pandian, A. (2018). The chaotic English language policy and planning in Bangladesh: Areas of apprehension. Social Sciences and Humanities, 26(2), 893–908.

Ramanathan, V. (2005). The English-Vernacular Divide. Postcolonial Language Politics and Practice. Multilingual Matters

Sharif, A. (1987). বাঙালির চিন্ চেতনার বিবর্তনধারা [The evolution of the thoughts and consciousness of Bengalis]. The University Press Limited.

Statista (2021, April 21). Bangladesh: Total Population from 2016 to 2026. https://www.statista.com/statistics/438167/total-population-of-bangladesh/

Sultana, S. (2014). Heteroglossia and identities of young adults in Bangladesh. Linguistics and Education, 26, 40–56.

HC rules on use of Bangla everywhere (2014, February 17). Dhaka Tribune, P51.

https://www.dhakatribune.com/uncategorized/2014/02/17/hc-rules-on-use-of-bangla-everywhere

Uddin, S. M. (2006). Constructing Bangladesh: Religion, Ethnicity, and Language in an Islamic Nation. University of North Carolina Press.

Victoria, M. P. (2017). English: its role as the language of comity in an employment programme for Canadian immigrants. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 15(1), 114–134, DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2014.937401

Woolard, K.A. (1992). Language Ideology: Issues and Approaches. Special Issues on Language Ideologies. Pragmatics, 2(3), 235–249.

Woolard, K. A., & Schieffelin, B. B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 23(1), 55–82

Zaman, H. & Habib, S. (2018). Introduction: Canada 150 Conference on Migration of Bengalis. Proceedings of Canada 150 Migration of Bengalis. http://monographs.lib.sfu.ca/index.php/sfulibrary/catalog/book/73

“Maybe Jesus knows sign”: Resistance through identity formation

Volume 2(1): 2018

TIMOTHY Y. LOH, Georgetown University

ABSTRACT

This anthropological research paper explores how Deaf Christians negotiate their identity as members of two distinct identity groups: Deaf and Christian. The historical perception of Deaf and other disabled peoples in the church has not been positive, and a number of Christians today also view disability as one consequence of a fallen world that God will eventually restore. Since—beginning in the 1960s and continuing until the present time—many Deaf people believe that Deafness is a cultural, even ethnic, identity centered around American Sign Language rather than a disability (Lane, 2005), Deaf Christians in America today occupy a unique position of belonging to two identity groups, whose beliefs may conflict with one another and who may not have the same perspective on what constitutes disability. Using ethnographic evidence among Deaf Christians in Washington, DC, I argue that Deaf Christian identity formation can be seen as a nexus of resistance against deaf-deficient narratives in Christianity, which have historical roots and still hold much currency today. My interlocutors do not necessarily see a conflict between their Deaf and Christian identities, seeing both instead as a single identity of “Deaf Christian,” which they index (Ochs, 2009) through conversion narratives, a discourse of “God’s purpose,” and a desire for better inclusion. In using these language forms, Deaf Christians not only point to its existence but also serve to reinforce its existence.

RÉSUMÉ

Cet article reprend une recherche anthropologique et explore comment les Chrétiens Sourds négocient leur identité en tant que membres de deux groupes identitaires distincts : les Sourds et les Chrétiens. La perception historique des sourds et des autres personnes handicapées dans l’Église n’a pas été positive, et un certain nombre de Chrétiens considèrent encore aujourd’hui le handicap comme une conséquence d’un monde déchu que Dieu restaurera. Depuis le début des années 1960, de nombreux sourds croient que la surdité est une identité culturelle, voire ethnique, centrée autour de la langue des signes américaine, plutôt qu’un handicap (Lane, 2005). Les personnes sourdes et chrétiennes aux États-Unis bénéficient donc d’une double appartenance à ces groupes identitaires, dont les croyances peuvent éventuellement entrer en conflits et qui ne partagent pas la même définition du handicap. En utilisant des preuves ethnographiques parmi les Chrétiens Sourds à Washington, je soutiens que la formation de l’identité chrétienne des sourds peut être considérée comme un lien de résistance contre les récits sourds-déficients dans le christianisme, qui ont des racines historiques et qui demeurent encore vivaces. Mes interlocuteurs ne perçoivent pas nécessairement un conflit entre leurs identités de Sourds et de Chrétiens, considérant les deux comme une seule identité de « Sourd-Chrétien », qu’ils indiquent (Ochs, 2009) à travers des récits de conversion, un discours sur « le dessein de Dieu » et le désir d’une meilleure intégration. En utilisant ces formes de langage, les Chrétiens sourds montrent leur existence, mais s’en servent aussi afin de la renforcer.

Keywords: deafness, Deafness, disability, religion, Christianity, identity, indexicality, linguistic anthropology.

INTRODUCTION

During our interview, Lucas1 recounted a story to me told to him by his brothers-in-law, who had both attended Gallaudet University, the only liberal arts college for deaf and hard-of-hearing students in the world, in the early 2000s. On the first day of their class on Deaf2 history in America, the professor asked the class, “Who here is Christian?” A few students raised their hands. Pointing at each of them in turn, the professor said, “You. . .you. . .you. . . are stupid and feeble-minded.”

Laughing at the absurdity of the situation, Lucas went on to explain that this professor also coauthored a book about the making of the Deaf community in America, in which he had written:

The New Testament contains neither commandments to treat deaf people decently nor promises that one day all shall be free of disabilities. . . they are depicted as sick beings to be cured by the miraculous powers of Jesus. The deaf individual is lost as a human being. Mark shows no concern or empathy for the deaf man; he merely exploits his condition to demonstrate supernatural power. The possibility that deaf persons may be part of God’s plan, that He created them for a larger purpose, is absent. (Van Cleve & Crouch, 1989, p. 3)

When Lucas had finished signing out the paragraph, he said, “I read it and it’s clear that [the author] isn’t interpreting the Scripture in the proper way. You have to read it in context. He is taking a sentence out of the context and it means something different—but that’s my view.” Lucas believed that the professor was writing from an atheist’s perspective, and therefore drew such dire conclusions; for himself, however, as a Christian of more than 40 years, the notion that God has such a low view of deaf people, and that he did not have a purpose for them, was simply inconceivable.

The anecdote I share above illustrates the central problematic I discuss in this paper: the relationship between Deafness and Christianity; in particular, the unique identity configuration of individuals with both Deaf and Christian identities. In this context, Deafness refers to a cultural identity centered around American Sign Language rather than to physiological hearing loss, distinguished by the use of the capital “d”. As Harlan Lane (2005) has written, “It has become widely known that there is a Deaf-World in the United States, as in other nations, citizens whose primary language is American Sign Language (ASL) and who identify as members of that minority culture” (p. 291).

Deaf Christians in the United States are in the unique position of belonging to both Deaf and Christian identity groups. Beginning in the 1960s and continuing until the present time, the former group have believed that Deafness is a cultural, even ethnic, identity. Many, given the choice, would rather stay Deaf than become part of the hearing community; for example, Lane (2005) recounted an incident when Gallaudet’s first Deaf president, I. King Jordan, was asked on Sixty Minutes if he would like to be hearing, to which his response was, “That’s almost like asking a black person if he would rather be white. . .I don’t think of myself as missing something or as incomplete” (p. 298).

The latter group, on the other hand, views disability (of which deafness is often considered a part) theologically, as one consequence of a fallen world that God will eventually restore. Historically, in traditional Christian doctrine, deaf people were often portrayed as victims of circumstance in need of healing, as the healing of disabilities was taken as a sign of Jesus’ ministry on earth (Matthew 11:4-5). In extreme cases, they were seen as being beyond salvation, based for instance in the Bible verse: “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ” (Romans 10:17), a view which Deaf historians Van Cleve and Crouch (1989) argued is falsely attributed to Saint Augustine, whose view towards deaf people was far more charitable. Whatever the case, “people who interpreted the Bible literally believed that it indicated that those who are deaf are denied the possibility of faith. Without faith, they cannot be Christians and cannot be saved” (p. 4). These two sets of beliefs seem to be in tension: is a deaf person disabled or not? Does a deaf person need to be healed?

In this research project, I use anthropological methods to explore the question: does an identity conflict exist for Deaf Christians? If so, how do they reconcile and resolve the conflict? I ultimately argue that a unified Deaf Christian identity exists among my informants that is indexed through three linguistic characteristics: conversion narratives, a discourse of God’s purpose, and a desire for better inclusion. Deaf Christian identity formation, I argue, can be seen as a nexus of resistance against deaf-deficient narratives in Christianity, which have historical roots and continue to hold much currency today.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Anthropologist Joel Robbins (2003) has argued that although there exist a few ethnographies of particular Christian communities, an anthropology of Christianity for itself—as a “self-conscious, comparative project” (p. 191)—has yet to truly develop, especially compared to an anthropology of Islam. Anthropological studies on the relationship between disability and Christianity are even fewer, with only one scholar, Leila Monaghan (1991), writing about the interplay of Christian and Deaf identities. She discussed these identities in the context of the founding of two Deaf churches, however, without examining if these identities come into conflict. However, the question of identity conflicts for disabled Christians did prompt Kathy Black (1996), ex-chaplain at Gallaudet University, to write A Healing Homiletic: Preaching and Disability about healing narratives in the Bible, focusing on theological views as opposed to lived experiences of Deaf Christians. The latter aspect is the focus of this project.

Language is a useful index as an analytical tool for helping us understand how identities are formed and performed by individuals. From an anthropological framework, I follow anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod (1991) in focusing on “discourse and practice” (p. 147) as a way to avoid essentialising my informants and presenting their culture as static and unchanging. According to Elinor Ochs’ (2009) Indexicality Principle, people use particular language forms (such as interrogative forms, diminutive affairs, raised pitch, and so on) to point to particular situational meanings (such as temporal, spatial, social identities, social acts and activities, affective and epistemic stances, and so on). A linguistic index, Ochs defined, is “a structure. . .that is used variably from one situation to another and becomes conventionally associated with particular situational dimensions such that when that structure is used, the form invokes those situational dimensions” (p. 406). In particular, Ochs claimed that people use language to index social identity, for example, in hierarchical West Samoan society, “the verbs sau [“come”] and alu [“go”] index that the speaker is of a higher rank than the addressee” (p. 407). Thus, it is appropriate for older siblings to direct imperatives using these verbs at their younger siblings to index their seniority, but not for younger siblings to use them on their older siblings.

Bailey (2000) further elaborated upon how people intentionally and unintentionally use language to index identity by stating that “analysis of language and naturally occurring discourse is a means to understanding how individuals, as social actors, highlight social boundaries and activate facets of identity” (p. 192). He goes on to explain how second-generation Dominican Americans use language practices to highlight their unique identity position and differentiate themselves from other identity groups. For example, they spoke Spanish to differentiate themselves from African Americans, used certain features of African American Vernacular English to differentiate themselves from white Americans, and spoke English to differentiate themselves from Dominicans from the Dominican Republic. Coupland and Jaworski (2009a) also wrote:

Rather than reflecting society and an individual’s place within it, language use is constitutive of social differences and identities. Speakers are able to make active and reasoned linguistic choices, while also responding to the combination of social constraints regulating and restricting their verbal repertoires. (p. 31)

However, Bailey seemed to take for granted the existence of a Dominican American identity without taking into account the process of its formation and the potential conflicts that come with the meshing of two disparate identities. To understand possible responses to identity conflict, Rodriguez and Ouellette (2000) interviewed gay and lesbian Christians, who are analogous to Deaf Christians in that they also belong to two distinct identity groups whose beliefs may conflict with each other. In a similar way to disabled people, there are LGBTQ-negative narratives in Christianity, particularly American evangelicalism, which may cause an identity conflict among gay and lesbian Christians; however, these Christians may not see their sexual orientation as a choice, whereas Deaf identity, as I will elaborate upon further, is often consciously adopted. Rodriguez and Ouellette wrote that there were four strategies in response to gay Christian identity conflict: rejecting the gay identity, rejecting the Christian identity, compartmentalising, and integrating the two identities. They argued that most of the gay Christians they interviewed have successfully integrated these identities and no longer see a conflict between the two. I argue that the Deaf Christians that I interviewed have similarly integrated their identities and no longer see conflict between them.

The participants used a number of stories to index their identities as Deaf Christians, and these narratives are an important discursive tool that allows people to not only present who they are but also better understand who they are. Schriffin (1996) analysed two stories told by Jewish-American women to demonstrate how they construct their identities, using language to display their epistemic and agentive selves, their role in the family, and their identities as mothers. She emphasised the importance of narrative, the centerpiece of her argument:

Narrative is a means by which to arrive at an understanding of the self as emergent from actions and experiences, both in relation to general themes or plots and as located in a cultural matrix of meanings, beliefs, and practices. The form, content, and performance of narrative thus all provide sensitive indices of our personal selves and our social and cultural identities. (p. 194)

In my research, therefore, I attempt to elicit and analyse narratives that point to aspects of the participants’ identities.

METHODOLOGY

This paper is based on data collected from five qualitative interviews I conducted with Deaf Christians over Skype as part of ethnographic fieldwork conducted at a large, multi-sited evangelical church with a Deaf ministry in Washington, D.C. over the period of a year and a half. Interestingly, the theme of disability rarely came up during this period (which could in fact point to a resolved conflict between Deaf and Christian identities), and so my findings are derived primarily from the interviews I conducted rather than from my fieldwork, during which I asked questions specifically regarding this topic.

I conducted one interview with each participant. Interviews lasted between 40 minutes and an hour and 10 minutes. I video-recorded these interviews on my laptop and then annotated them with ELAN for significant themes and important instances of linguistic use. Any quotes that I later use in this article have been translated from ASL into English by me,3,4 and I have strived to preserve the voice of the participant as far as possible by using a more literal, word-for-word approach. In line with more qualitative sociolinguistic work that has been done in recent years (see, for example, Bucholtz, 1999; Juspal & Coyle, 2010; Schriffin, 1996), rather than extrapolating my data to generalise about the experiences of all Deaf Christians, I am more interested in exploring the range of possible responses that individuals in such a position may use to respond to an identity conflict. The qualitative data I collected are useful for “helping us understand the intricacies and local complexities of more particular instances, seen ‘from the inside'” (Coupland & Jaworski, 2009b, p. 19), that is, from the perspective of Deaf Christians themselves.

Of the five participants I interviewed, four were regular attendees of the evangelical church in Washington, DC that I mentioned earlier in this section (where I was also an attendee) and had been for at least two years prior to gathering the data. The church is a large multi-site church affiliated with the Assemblies of God denomination with a number of locations in the DC metropolitan area; while the vast majority of attendees are hearing, they have a small Deaf ministry at their main campus, where one of the services is interpreted into ASL. The fifth participant had attended the church at least once but now regularly attends another hearing-majority church that also has a Deaf ministry.

While all five had some degree of hearing loss and were fluent in ASL, only one of them was a native user. Jonathan had grown up in a hearing family and attended a Deaf school from two to five before transferring to a mainstream school where he did not sign as he was educated alongside non-signing hearing students. He began learning ASL again while in his first year of college and then transferred to Gallaudet where he obtained a bachelor’s degree in Deaf Studies. Vikram had grown up in a deaf family in India, using a variety of homesigns and attending mainstream schools, and only learnt ASL after moving to the United States and attending Gallaudet University. Also mainstreamed alongside non-hearing peers, Lucas did not sign growing up and graduated from a hearing college in Louisiana. After graduation, he moved to Washington DC where he immersed himself in ASL and now uses it as his primary form of communication. Chelsea, the only native ASL user, has a history of hearing loss in her family and her mother and six of her seven siblings are deaf (two were born deaf). She was born hearing and began signing with her Deaf mother and older brother at a young age. She began experiencing hearing loss at the age of 15 and started wearing hearing aids, but did not identify as culturally Deaf until the last two years of high school when she attended a Deaf school. The last, Rachel, was born to and grew up in a hearing family in Singapore. As she was mainstreamed for most of her life, she did not identify as culturally Deaf until she went to Australia where she obtained her undergraduate degree in deaf education and worked as a teacher for deaf children. She spent 11 years there before coming to Gallaudet for her graduate degree and has been learning ASL intensively since then.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

The analysis of the data first points to the fact that most of the participants recognise that there could be a conflict between Deaf and Christian identities, though they might not have personally experienced it themselves. Jonathan told me, for instance, that he had struggled with this very conflict between his Deaf and Christian identities in the past (as will be related in a story later). Lucas, who related the anecdote that begins this article, responded that many Deaf people had been “hurt by the church,” given the historical Christian perception of deafness as disability and even a disqualifier for salvation. On the contrary, Chelsea was very adamant in saying that she had never felt a conflict between her identity as a Deaf person and as a Christian. For Vikram, he had personally never felt a conflict between these two identities; when I asked him whether there was one, he was genuinely perplexed and asked me what I meant by that question. However, for both Chelsea and Vikram, they acknowledged that others might perceive the conflict I referred to.

For all the participants, however, they did not see or no longer saw a conflict between Deaf and Christian identities for themselves, instead assuming a new identity of being a “Deaf Christian,” one that they index through language.5 Aside from the question of whether a conflict existed, the data revealed three common themes in the participants’ responses that index the Deaf Christian identity: conversion narratives, a discourse of purpose, and a desire for better inclusion. As I discuss later in my analysis, this Deaf Christian identity and its concomitant themes should be read as a form of resistance against disability-negative narratives present in non-Deaf Christian circles.

Conversion Narratives

The first theme is data was conversion narratives. Conversion narratives are common within evangelical Christianity and wider Christian culture and are often called “testimonies.” These narratives point to the moment at which a person decides to become a Christian and often involves some element of realisation that they did not like how they were living up to that point. For example, Jonathan told the story of how he converted at a co-educational camp: “I remember hearing the story about Jesus knocking on the door of your heart. Jesus says he wants to come in, but you—the person—need to open your heart to let him in.” Chelsea also recounted that she had grown up going to Catholic church and school but never really knew what she believed. She felt the message that she heard growing up was always the same, and never had an impact on her. However, “when I got to my old church, HCC (Heritage Community Church), that’s when I understood [the message of the gospel].”

At the same time, the participants had a similar Deaf “conversion narrative,” also a trope of Deaf literature, if not necessarily labelled as such due to the religious connotations of the word “conversion.” These stories often involve a person who grows up without knowing about Deaf culture and understands deafness only as hearing loss; however, when they encounter the Deaf community for the first time, they find their “true home” there and adopt a Deaf identity (see, for example, Deaf Like Me and Deaf Again). The participants had grown up in primarily hearing environments—Lucas even stated that he had thought of himself as hearing because of his environment—and used speech growing up, but had found the Deaf community at a later stage and now primarily used sign. Jonathan recounted, “Later, when I was 17—or about 16, thereabouts—I started signing again.6 That was when I started to develop my identity from hearing—well, not really hearing, but more hard-of-hearing, more disconnected from the Deaf community. . . I started to make my way to become Deaf.”

These conversion narratives indicate how Deaf identity emerges out of a context of community and is then consciously or subconsciously adopted by its adherents and demonstrated through the learning and deliberate use of sign language.

Discourse of Purpose

The second theme is what I call the discourse of “God’s purpose.” All of the participants, at some point, mentioned their belief that God made them Deaf for some reason. While for Chelsea, the purpose was more personal, for Jonathan, Lucas, and Rachel, it was so that they could reach out to other members of the Deaf community who were not Christians.

For Chelsea, the purpose God had for her was more personal, in that she felt that the most important thing for her was having a relationship with God. As she said, “I can feel, I can have a connection with God. I have feelings, emotions. . . That’s why God made me this way: unique.”

Jonathan believed differently though. After he was not healed of hearing loss at a church service when he was 16 or 17, he had a change of heart. As he recounted:

The more I thought about it, God was really showing me, teaching me, that he made me this way for a purpose. He was not opening my ears, but opening my heart, opening my eyes, to see that his plan and purpose for me. I believe he made me Deaf so I could participate in the Deaf community, in Deaf culture, to sign. . . so I can support Deaf and hearing integration [in the church body].

He also believed that part of God’s purpose for him was also to educate other hearing Christians about Deaf identity, that many Deaf people were happy to be Deaf and did not want to be healed.

Lucas had an even more dramatic shift. He had attended a Deaf school when he was younger, but did not have a good experience there and was often made fun of by other Deaf students because he was not as fluent in sign. He had therefore eschewed anything relating to Deafness in his older years and attended a hearing college. However, he felt that in college he received a call from God to enter full-time ministry serving the Deaf community and, after speaking to his pastor, decided to move to DC to pursue that and became a full-time worker in campus ministry.

Desire for Better Inclusion

The third theme that emerged through the interviews was a desire for better inclusion in the wider Christian body as a particular group, albeit in different forms. For Lucas and Jonathan, they preferred that Deaf Christians have their own church and, in particular, their own Deaf pastor. As Lucas expressed, accessibility in a hearing church was “no substitute for a pastor preaching in sign language compared to a hearing pastor who is preaching with an interpreter.” For him, it was important for Deaf Christians to access the message and the gospel “in their own language,” that is, ASL. Even with interpreters, he felt that some parts of the message were always lost. Jonathan insisted that no matter what a hearing church did to integrate its Deaf members, Deaf people “would always complain”—they needed a church they could consider their own, not one in which they felt they were in the margins.

Vikram, on the other hand, felt that Deaf Christians could be better integrated and that their needs had to be better met. For example, interpreters should stay after the service to help facilitate conversations; currently, he said, interpreters finish interpreting for the service and leave immediately after: “It’s rude!” he said. He insisted on the need for more social events, such as picnics, in which Deaf and hearing members of the church could interact and get to know each other better. Rachel, too, expressed her appreciation of her church’s efforts to provide, for example, sign language classes for hearing people so that they could converse with the Deaf members in the church.

DISCUSSION

The three themes that emerge from the data—the use of conversion narratives, the discourse of God’s purpose, and the desire for better inclusion—serve linguistically to index the integrated Deaf Christian identity that the participants have adopted. I argue that, in some ways, these three language forms are what Bucholtz (1999) has called “positive identity practices,” which are “those [practices] in which individuals engage in order actively to construct a chosen identity” (p. 211). These positive identity practices, which Bucholtz distinguished from negative identity practices—defined as “those that individuals employ to distance themselves from a rejected identity” (p. 211)—take place at different linguistic levels, including discourse. In the same way that nerd girls in Bucholtz’s study displayed a particular orientation to language form that includes punning, parody, and word coinage, to legitimise their belonging to the nerd girl community, the participants in this study use the three stated discourse-level linguistic strategies to index their belonging to the Deaf Christian community.

The Christian conversion narrative, in particular, is important in indexing belonging in the Christian community, given its prominence in the evangelical Christian tradition (which the Assemblies of God is part of). Everyone is expected to have a “testimony” and having one points to a pivotal point in the Christian’s journey, whether it be a “shift to Christianity from no religion” or the “[strengthening of] a prior commitment to Christianity” (Jindra et al., 2012, p. 2). In fact, at the church, not infrequently, there would be a short, five-minute testimony given by a member of the church just prior to the sermon that could be about God’s deliverance from a particular suffering, a renewed commitment to the faith, a recent conversion to the faith, and topics of that nature. Some of the participants were likely socialised into that experience as regular attendees of the church. Possession of a conversion narrative legitimised their membership in the Christian community, while the language the narrative was given in, ASL, plus a conversion narrative of entry into Deaf culture, indicated their unique position as members also of the Deaf community.

The formation of a Deaf Christian identity was in many ways a rejection of and a form of resistance against the label of “disabled”—and often, “in need of healing”—that hearing Christians impose on them. This is seen in that the discourse of “God’s purpose” that was utilised by many participants was often linked to specific instances of misunderstanding or ignorance by hearing people. For example, Vikram recounted an incident when he visited an interpreted service at a church in Chicago. During the service, he saw two people close by whispering among themselves, and knew immediately that they were going to pray for his healing. Sure enough, they laid their hands upon his ears and started praying. Nothing happened, but after they finished praying, one of them handed him a piece of paper, on it asking him if he wanted to give a testimony. He agreed, walked on stage, and said through the interpreter: “Thank you to the two of you for praying for me. For me to hear—you all want it for me, I understand, because you have pity on deaf people. BUT God—He sees me and He doesn’t [have pity on me]. He gave me everything. This body is what He gave to me and I’m happy with it” (emphasis his). This discourse allowed the participants to define identity for themselves and to see themselves as active protagonists rather than victims of circumstance in their own life stories.

It is also important to note that the three themes that emerged in the interviews with the participants do not merely index the Deaf Christian identity, but in fact also serve to create it. This is what Elinor Ochs (2009) has called “indexical property of constitutiveness.” As she explained, “when interlocutors use indexical forms, they may constitute some social structure in the immediate situation at hand” (p. 411). For example, as mentioned earlier, West Samoan society is very hierarchical and the verbs sau and alu index asymmetric relationships between higher-ranking and lower-ranking members of the society. When older siblings use these verbs on their younger siblings and when younger siblings obey, they in effect recreate the unequal power dynamic. When the participants in the study use these language forms to index the Deaf Christian identity, and also when this identity is recognised by others inside and outside that community (for example, the church agreeing to the Deaf ministry’s request for sign language classes or more interpreters), they essentially reify its unique existence.

LIMITATIONS

There are a number of drawbacks to the methodology I used. The first is my relationship with some of the participants: we are not only fellow church members, but also friends and that could have influenced both their willingness to speak to me as well as the answers they gave me. Our friendship could also mean that they were more honest with me than they would have been with a complete stranger; however, there is no way to discern this. Second, the data I collected was elicited rather than naturally occurring. As Lucas et al. (2013) have written, there is an inherent conflict in data collection of this sort because although sociolinguists are interested in “the language signers’ and speakers’ use when they are not being observed,” researchers often have “to record their production in situations that often lead to self-consciousness” (p. 545). The third is that I am neither deaf nor a native user of ASL. Hill wrote that “ASL users are. . . sensitive to a signer’s audiological status (e.g., Deaf or Hearing)” and recount an incident when a Black Deaf interviewee shifted from signing to speaking when she discovered that one of the researchers was White and Hearing, even though until that point she had been signing fully without voicing (p. 111-112; capitals in the original). While some of these issues, such as my audiological status, cannot be changed, I hope in future projects to mitigate them, through collaboration with a Deaf researcher or recruitment of participants that I do not know.

CONCLUSION

As shown in the data and argued in this paper, for some Christians, at least, there is a real identity conflict between the Deaf and the Christian identity. However, the participants in this study have managed to resolve the identity conflict by integrating the two, pointing to a unique identity configuration that is both Deaf and Christian, not belonging exclusively to one or the other. They index this new identity by three key linguistic elements: the use of the conversion narratives, the discourse of God’s purpose, and the desire for better inclusion. The title of this piece comes from the interview I conducted with Vikram; when I asked him whether there would be Deaf people in heaven, he responded emphatically, “Why not? Maybe Jesus knows sign.” This response, in which Vikram posits a signing, even Deaf, Jesus, captures the attempt of Deaf Christians to reappropriate a faith that accommodates their membership in the church, in response to disability-negative narratives that have historically served to exclude them from it.

I ultimately hope that this project will serve as a starting point for further research that will inform churches seeking to set up ministries to the Deaf or existing churches with Deaf ministries on how to better serve this particular demographic. More generally, I hope that it provides insight into the issues that arise and the transformations that may take place in the interplay between religion and religious identity and social and cultural developments.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was made possible through a Doyle Engaging Difference Undergraduate Fellowship 2014-15, granted by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown University. I thank Melody Fox Ahmed and Dr. Sara Singha for supporting the project, Dr. Risa Shaw for introducing me to the sociolinguistics of the Deaf community, my interlocutors for generously giving of their time to answer my questions, as well as my peer mentor at J-BILD, Dr. Caroline Riches, and the rest of the editorial team at the journal for pushing me to clarify the terms of my argument and to give my argument greater coherence and form. I presented earlier drafts of this paper at Ways of Knowing 2016: The 5th Annual Graduate Conference on Religion at Harvard Divinity School and 15th Annual Graduate Research Symposium at the College of William and Mary and am grateful for the feedback I received there. Thanks also to Carine Zanchi for translating my abstract into French.

REFERENCES

Abu-Lughod, L. (1991). Writing against culture. In R. G. Fox (Ed.), Recapturing anthropology: working in the present (pp. 137-162). Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

Bailey, B. (2000). The language of multiple identities among Dominican Americans. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 10(2), 190-223.

Black, K. (1996). A healing homiletic: Preaching and disability. Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Bucholtz, M. (1999). “Why be normal?”: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society, 28, 203-223.

Coupland, N., & Jaworski, A. (2009a). Language variation. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), The new sociolinguistics reader (pp. 23-33). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Coupland, N. & Jaworski, A. (2009b). Social worlds through language. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), The new sociolinguistics reader (pp. 1-21). London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Drolsbaugh, M. (2008). Deaf again. Springhouse: Handwave Publications.

Hill, J. (2013). Vignette 6c. Special issues in collecting interview data for sign language projects. In C. Mallinson, B. Childs, & G. Van Herk (Eds.), Data collection in sociolinguistics: Methods and applications (pp. 110-113). London & New York: Routledge.

Jindra, I. W., Woods, R., Badzinski, D., & Paris, J. (2012). Gender, religiosity, and the telling of Christian conversion narratives. Journal for the Sociological Integration of Religion and Society, 2(1), 1-23.

Juspal, R, & Coyle, A. (2010). Arabic is the language of the Muslims – that’s how it was supposed to be: Exploring language and religious identity through reflective accounts from young British-born South Asians. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 13(1), 17-36.

Lane, H. (2005). Ethnicity, ethics, and the deaf-world. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(3), 291-310.

Lucas, C., Mirus, G., Palmer, J. L., Roessler, N. J., & Frost, A. (2013). The effect of new technologies on sign language research. Sign Language Studies, 13(4), 541-564.

Monaghan, L. (1991). The founding of two deaf churches: The interplay of deaf & Christian identities. Sign Language Studies, 73(1), 431-452.

Ochs, E. (2009). Linguistic resources for socializing humanity. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language, No. 17. Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 407-437). New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

Robbins, J. (2003). What is a Christian? Notes toward an anthropology of Christianity. Religion, 33(3), 191-199.

Rodriguez, E. M., & Ouellette, S. C. (2000). Gay and lesbian Christians: Homosexual and religious identity integration in the members and participants of a gay-positive church. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39(3), 333-347.

Schiffrin, D. (1996). Narrative as self-portrait: Sociolinguistic constructions of identity. Language in Society, 25(2), 167-203.

Spradley, T. S., & Spradley, J. P. (1978). Deaf like me. New York: Random House.

Van Cleve, J. V., & Crouch, B. A. (1989). A place of their own: Creating the Deaf community in America. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.


1 All the participants have been given pseudonyms to protect their privacy.

2 Deaf refers to the cultural/ethnic identity, centered around the use of sign language, whereas deaf refers to an audiological status (whether one can hear or not). The latter (deaf) is a broader category than Deaf.

3 An important limitation, but necessary due to IRB restrictions. Any translation errors are mine alone.

4 I am a hearing researcher who has been involved in the d/Deaf community for many years, beginning in Singapore where I first learned (Singaporean) sign language. I began learning ASL (related to a certain extent to Singaporean Sign Language) in my first year in college and had become proficient enough to take graduate level classes in ASL at Gallaudet University in my last year.

5 As a caveat, Vikram said that he was not a Christian, but rather, a “follower of Jesus,” a phrase he preferred given disagreements between different Christian denominations.

6 As mentioned in the methodology, Jonathan went to a Deaf school from ages two to five and was educated in a mainstream school without sign thereafter.

css.php