Notes on Ethnicity by Harris (2013)

Harris, R. (2013). Ethnicity. In J. Simpson (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics. London: Routledge. 

I. Introduction

- There are set limitations to the chapter, bulleted in page 344.

A. Ethnicity and applied linguistics

1. Post-WWII: AL’s dev’t from sources of authority from locations of the ‘Anglo diaspora’; “learning of English by ethnic and racial ‘others’” is a central focus (p. 344).

2. Teaching English (other EU languages), raised questions about ‘ethnicity’ and ‘race’ (p. 345).

B. The concept of Ethnicity

1. AL “has not supplied a lead in offering its [ethnicity] own explicit conceptualization” (p. 345; see quote from Hutchinson and Smith).

C. An Intepretive frame for conceptualizing ethnicity

- Stuart Hall on key sociological and philosophical notions; three dimensions/ frames: ‘traditional (pre-modern)’, ‘modern’, ‘late modern/ity’ (p.345).

D. Harris presented definitional/ background on Tensions between tradition and modernity & Tensions between modernity and late modernity (pp. 346-7).

1. “[…] ‘race’ is a social and cultural construction rather than a biological-scientific fact.” Harris and Rampton’s comment on the latter statement is highlighted on page 347.

2. ‘Race’ on ethnicity relates to classification, i.e. “sharing common ancestry...language…religion, and a distinctive physical appearance; note ‘primitive’ (p. 347).

3. However, a shift from “identifying essences” and “locating” peoples to “analyzing practices and social processes of categorization”, as in race/ethnicity (see Harris & Rampton, p. 348).

II. Tradition, modernity and ethnicity in applied linguistics

- Ethnicity within AL, “complicated and often relatively opaque matter” (p. 348).

A. Ethnicity and the ‘birth’, development and consolidation of applied linguistics

1. Anglo world on “a common commitment to the teaching of English worldwide” (Howatt & Widowson, 2004; p. 348). Britain to teaching English as L2 in secondary schools; US to documenting Amerindian languages endangered for extinction.

2. Initial relationships operated with colonialist perspective in tradition and modernity. New configurations with regards to this are notable in the postcolonial period (p. 348).

B. Ethnicity and postcolonial language planning

1. 1950s and 1960s: characterized by “building modern nation states” through collaboration with former colonies (p. 349). “Local ethnically linked languages” marred with “backwardness”, non-instrumental.

2. Resolution processes portrayed in the cases of (1) Sub-Saharan Africa (rivalry>unity>Mazrui; colonial language) and (2) Singapore (dominance>neutrality>practicality; accommodation). See page 350.

C. A struggle over authority and authenticity

1. Who/Where is/are the center/s of authority and authenticity “with regard to English” and its teaching (p. 351)? Overviews on (1) dispute between Quirk and Kachru and (2) the native speaker intervention by Rampton.

2. Quirk and Kachru: perspectives “carried an underlying ethnic/racial embodiment” (p. 351). Finally, Anglo ethnicity remains as the “central reference point”, according to Rampton (1990).

3. Native speaker intervention: Rampton, issues of ethnicity “are negotiated rather than given” works in the light of late modern “frames of thought and analysis” (p. 351).

D. Ethnicity and applied linguistics ‘at home’: majority-minority relation

- Language learning as “proxy for a general discourse of hostility” (p. 352; pp. 353-5). UK: Assimilation principles. The USA: Cases on AAVE and Spanish language.

III. Modernity, late modernity and ethnicity in applied linguistics

- Ethnicity, grew from assuming groupings–“labels” (p. 355); as with Harris and Rampton, new configurations as ‘roUtes’ rather than ‘roOts’ (emphasis by the authors).

- Worthy to note is ‘social class’ in the context of ethnicity and language (p. 356).