MULTILINGUALISM AND SCHOOL LANGUAGE POLICY IN POST- APARTHEID SOUTH AFRICA

-242- the focus on English and regard all members of the multilingual society as target groups of educational language activities. Whereas the Molteno approach accepts the structure of the language market as given, the ELTIC and PRAESA approaches aim to transform this structure: They question, for instance, the great importance placed on English language proficiency in examinations that control access to the next higher educational institutions. And they propose, in particular, measures of affirmative action to support speakers of African languages on the labour market, e.g. when choosing employees for public administration or the health service, the government should give preference to candidates who speak at least one African language. This kind of measure might in turn motivate English speakers to learn African languages, thus raising these languages’ status in the education system. In their interviews, representatives of both PRAESA and ELTIC recognize the importance of English as working language in South Africa and say that the question is not whether but how English should be learned. Based on results of international research on bilingual education, representatives of PRAESA argue for the national implementation of an ‘additive bilingual teaching model’. According to this approach the successful learning of a high-status language like English depends on the parallel development of mother tongue proficiency throughout the educational career. This argument does imply, however, that the effective acquisition of competence in English should be seen as the central criterion of ‘success’ in bilingual education. This argument is problematic, as it represents the traditional school conception, in which the essential aim of bilingual lessons approaches is to promote the second language. All other aims of bilingual education in South Africa B e.g. mother tongue literacy, promotion of African languages, strengthening of self-esteem of African children, more active involvement of African parents in school issues B could thus easily be ignored. Comparison of approaches 2: The common sense’ views about African Languages as a media of instruction The question whether African languages are suitable as media of instruction is one of the most heatedly contested issues in the South African language debate. Paul Musker, Director of ELTIC, summarizes the ‘common sense’ attitude of many South Africans: ‘It has become common sense to think that African languages are only for Junior Primary = grade 1-3. And it’s nonsense. But that has become common sense.’ Interview with Paul Musker, ELTIC, on 5.3.1996. The so-called ‘common sense’ arguments, which are accepted by a broad cross-section of society, include the following: The argument of underdevelopment’ African languages are underdeveloped and do not have the terms needed to express scientific concepts. -243- The cost argument The development of African languages requires a lot of resources. Equally expensive is the preparation of school textbooks in all African Languages. This argument implies that education must be based on textbooks. The argument of ‘practicability and equality’ The children in the urban schools speak many languages. Which one should be selected? English is more practical for everybody and does not favour any one of the African language groups. The argument of ‘language preference’ Speakers of African languages themselves would prefer to have lessons in English rather than in their own languages. The reactions of the NGOs to the ‘common sense’ basically fall into two categories which are in line with their ‘market strategies’ analysed above. They either use the ‘common sense’ arguments to support their own language-in-education approach or they reject it in favour of a transformational strategy. An example of the first category is the Molteno Project which is largely in line with the linguistic status quo and which considers itself a ‘purely pedagogical’ organization without any political agenda. In contrast to this, the multilingual pedagogical programme of PREASA and ELTIC is linked with the political stance of these organisations. Both aim to enhance the language capital of African children in the school system and thus promote fundamental political and economic changes. They therefore struggle to undermine the dominant discourse on African languages. Thus they question, for instance, the logic of cost effectiveness’ of an English-only approach in textbook production: Isn’t the printing of textbooks in a language, of which not even the majority of black teachers has an adequate understanding as classroom based research could prove, a waste of money? They also scrutinize the discourse on language attitudes’, to give a second example, and point out the historic development and that means changeability of language attitudes. Moreover they could show that the standard questions in language attitude surveys of the past were highly biased, because they usually compelled African parents to choose between either mother tongue or English as medium of instruction for their children. More recent surveys which contain items referring to multilingual education models show an overwhelming support for multilingual teaching across all language groups in South Africa, but particularly amongst speakers of African languages. Comparison of approaches 3: Perspectives on multilingualism The three approaches to language already outlined can also be compared in terms of the image of multilingualism that they foster. Here a comparison with Germany is relevant. The position of Molteno, as already pointed out, tolerates multilingualism in instruction, at most, as an inevitable transition stage towards instruction in English. This perspective corresponds with the mainstream opinion in Germany about the role of immigrants’ languages, which are banned from classroom communication unless they are used to facilitate communication in the legitimate language B German. In contrast to this transitional perspective, PRAESA regards multilingualism as a qualification and a goal of education. As much as possible, every South African should be trilingual. This aim is -244- a challenge to current German views on language learning because it means that no dominant language, be it German or English, should be learned at the expense and marginalization of all other relevant languages. It also implies a more just distribution of the language learning load, because speakers of the dominant language can no longer sit back while members of other language groups struggle to learn their language in order to communicate with them. In Germany, this approach to language education could be implemented by demanding that every German citizen should learn three languages: In addition to the national official language German and an ‘important international language’ usually interpreted as English they should acquire at least basic conversational skills in one of the locally relevant languages, e.g. one of the many languages of immigrants or else a neighbouring language, such as Dutch, Danish, Polish or Czech. A report on the teaching of foreign languages in the Federal Republic of Germany commissioned by the Ministries of Education Conference KMK in fact already addressed the issue. In contrast to PRAESA’s approach, however, the experts begin with the assumption that combinations involving minority languages deviate from the rule and simply supplement traditionally taught Foreign languages Bliesener, Christ and Kästner, 1994, p. 18. The prerequisites for the application of a ‘plural’ language education model which includes ‘small languages’ would be, among other things, the agreement that language teaching within the framework of general education should not be restricted to purely instrumental goals meaning to teach the most ‘useful’ language, but should also promote general aims of education, for instance foster mutual respect for each others cultural heritages Decke-Cornill 1997. My criticism of PRAESA’s additive model is that it largely ignores the diversity of the children’s linguistic resources. Like the Molteno approach, the PRAESA model presupposes a defined mother tongue as a point of departure in the learning process. Mutlilingualism is only perceived as the outcome, not as the starting point of education. This is also quite a common view in Germany. Therefore it seems to me that the most promising approach lies in the third position, which emerged from the interviews conducted with ELTIC experts. This approach involves multilingualism, or B more precisely B linguistic variety in its widest sense, as a prerequisite for education. The diverse and heterogeneous language competencies which children bring into the classroom are perceived not as an obstacle to education, but as a capability and richness that should be exploited and developed by teachers. To conlude, I would suggest that the three approaches described above do not necessarily exclude one another. Under certain conditions, elements from all of them could be incorporated into a general model for language education in multilingual societies Niedrig, 2000.

II. Language and culture

In Germany, the concept ‘intercultural education’ has predominantly a positive connotation. Auernheimer, for example, argues for the recognition of cultural diversity inside German schools as fact and as a benefit Auernheimer, 1995. The opposite view emanates mainly from nationalist conservative political circles. In South Africa, by contrast, criticism of multilingualism comes to a large extent from ‘progressive’ political activists. This criticism has its root in the instrumentalisation of the concept of culture in the framework of Apartheid ideology, which actively promoted separate cultural development. Against this specific political background, I have outlined three different types of conflicts over the language issue. -245- Language and cultural identity: Three conflict scenarios The first case involves some white parents and Afrikaans lobbyists who advocate monolingual instruction in the medium of Afrikaans and argue that additional languages of instruction endanger the cultural identity of the Afrikaans speaking pupils. This argument, which goes back to social theory of Apartheid, is nowadays used to justify a continued exclusion of black children from white Afrikaans-medium schools. The conflict at stake is basically one about educational resources and privileges. The second case, the wish to preserve Indian languages in South Africa, is fundamentally different, even though it also involves the argument of language maintenance to protect cultural identity. Within the past two decades, many families of Indian origin have felt their culture to be threatened in the same measure as the younger generation adopted English as first language. They advocate the teaching of Indian languages as optional third language subjects as a way of giving their children access to the cultural and religious heritage of their ancestors. At the same time, Indian parents agree that their children should be proficient in English and Zulu or another African language. In contrast to the argumentation of Afrikaans lobbyists, this goal implies no cultural exclusiveness. It is rather about the recognition of heterogeneity. Finally, the third conflict constellation can be characterised by the phrase ‘Africanisation of the curriculum’. This is a rather complex issue, and those who support greater use of African languages in education do as a rule not resort to cultural arguments. As I have already pointed out, the ‘progressive’ sector of South African educationists uses the term ‘African culture’ with a certain unease, because of the racist connotations of this term within Apartheid discourse. Therefore it is not easy to discuss the question, whether and to which extent elements of ‘African culture’ should be incorporated into the general South African curriculum. Cultural identity’ in post-colonial theory Post-colonial theory provides a useful conceptual framework for understanding such concepts as ‘culture’ and ‘multiculturalism’ and locating them in the field of pedagogy. To start with, post- colonial theory challenges the mainstream concept of ‘cultural identity’. ‘Cultural identity’ B so a widespread belief B reflects the historical experiences and shared cultural codes of a community. Stuart Hall, a Jamaican-British post-colonial thinker, characterizes this traditional concept of ‘cultural identity’ as the imagining of a collective one true self. In contrast to this perspective he proposes a non-essentialist concept of identity, which not only recognizes the historical dimension of ‘cultural identity’, its transformations, changes and ruptures, but which also considers ‘identity’ as a product of discursive and visual representation Hall, 1990. Applying this concept to the discussion on culture in post-colonial and post-Apartheid South Africa, we find that it is not possible to go back to a pre-colonial, authentic African cultural identity, not distorted by colonialism and Apartheid. The ‘African’ has been established through the European gaze and in the narratives of the colonisers as the primitive ‘other’ of European civilization. No post- colonial representation of the ‘African’ can ignore this fact. Therefore, it is not simply a question of rehabilitating ‘African culture’ as legitimate culture, e.g. through integrating appropriate themes into the general curriculum. Rather it is necessary to deal with the dominant narratives of South African history, which produced ‘cultural identities’ within a dichotomy of black and white. -246- The relevance of post-colonial theory for Germany The multi-layered discussion on ‘multiculturalism’ in South Africa prompts us to also consider the German discussion of ‘intercultural education’ in a broader context so that its historical and conceptional foundations can be understood. As Krüger-Potratz 1998 argues, the ‘short history’ of intercultural pedagogy in Germany has to be examined in the light of its ‘long past’ to be able to recognize historic patterns in today’s debates and in ‘new’ problem-solving strategies put forward. In addition to the historical dimensions envisaged by Krüger-Potratz, this perspective should also consider the global dimension, including patterns of colonial education. The parallel between the paradigm of ‘intercultural pedagogy’ and theories of colonial education has been pointed out, for example, by Nestvogel 1991 on several occasions. In contrast to Great Britain and France, Germany is not normally considered as a former colonial power. The colonial history of the German Reich is erased from collective national memory to an astonishing degree, as the critical memory of German history is dominated by the debate on National Socialism and the Holocaust. Nevertheless, Germany is indisputably part of the history of colonialism. The fact that Germany was, after 1918, no longer involved in colonialism in the same way as other Western nations does not imply that it was not involved at all in the ‘colonial syndrom’ Hall, 1997, p. 225. ‘We are here, because you were there’ says a slogan among immigrants in England. At first glance, this slogan seems not applicable to the post-colonial immigration in Germany. However, the colonial syndrome is not restricted to the historical phase of colonial rule and political domination. Economic hegemony can also be considered as a form of neo-colonialism. From this perspective, the slogan ‘We are here, because you were there’ could apply, for instance, to the German recruiting offices in Turkey in the 1960s. It could also be read as a reference to the presence of various consumer goods ‘made in Germany’ in the periphery of the post-colonial world, and the advertisements that go with them, which convey an image of affluent life style, not only promoting consumption, but also inviting immigration. The global meaning of colonialism must be recognized not only as a system of power and exploitation but also as one of knowledge and representation Hall, 1997, p. 238. This can be the starting point for an investigation of the formation of post-colonial cultural identities in the multicultural society of Germany B which are constituted in opposition to ‘external others’ as well as ‘internal others’ Todorov, 1985, p. 186. Further to be investigated is, for example, the role of Turkish Muslims in Germany and how their presence affects the concept of ethnically defined ‘Germanness’. Also the debate around the issue of political asylum and the fear of increased African immigration to Germany needs critical analysis. In view of the current formation of a ‘German- European identity’ and in the context of the political unification of Europe, such discussions are of growing importance.