TO PART III
Symbolic Implications of
By James Crawford
Why has "bilingualism" suddenly become a burning
issue in the United States? A simple answer is that linguistic diversity
increased sharply in the 1980s, owing to sharply increased immigration.
More immigrants and refugees entered the country during the last decade
than any other since 1901-10. The majority of newcomers no longer arrived
from Europe, but from the Third World; racially and culturally, they were
even more heterogeneous than the "new immigrants" that alarmed
nativists three generations ago. With more contact between more language
groups, and with more demands on government for more bilingual services,
friction was inevitable between monolingual Americans and speakers of other
tongues. Language barriers created, or at least exacerbated, social tensions
and thus led to political conflicts.
While there is undeniable truth in this explanation, it
leaves a lot unanswered. "Irrational fear" may be a universal
response to foreigners and to foreign speech, as Carlos Alberto Montaner
suggests. And yet, the questions persist: Why are Americans today so eager
to legislate Anglo-conformity? Why wasn't Official English a salient issue
in earlier periods when ethnic diversity was at least as prevalent? Why
have such measures been adopted in states like Alabama that have minuscule
populations of linguistic minorities? Why is the idea so broadly appealing,
attracting white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, Euro-ethnics, and to a lesser
extent, blacks; racial reactionaries as well as supporters of civil rights;
Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives? Something more is
at work than a visceral reaction to language differences.
It is ironic, notes Joshua Fishman, that the Official
English campaign has appeared at a time when English is not only not
threatened, but is becoming the preeminent world language. He analyzes
English Only as a classic nativist movement, a diversion from real social
problems into a mythic world of scapegoats and stereotypes. Proponents
have seized upon bilingualism as a metaphor for troubling social change.
"Defending" English provides a way to express anxieties that
have little to do with language: the United States' slippage as a superpower,
economic polarization in the Reagan era, rootlessness and the decline of
community, our seeming impotence in coping with crises both foreign and
At the same time, there are rational if sometimes concealed
motives that guide the Official English campaign. James Crawford unveils
the intimate connections between U.S. English and the anti-immigration
lobby. A single citizen-activist, Dr. John Tanton, has been the principal
fundraiser, organizer, and intellectual force for both causes. His philosophy
was elaborated in a confidential paper warning of the perils of changing
demographics – in particular, "the Latin onslaught" from South
of the Border. Widely regarded as anti-Hispanic when it surfaced during
the campaigns of 1988, the memorandum created a scandal that forced the
resignation of Tanton and Linda Chávez from the leadership of U.S.
English. At the same time, it uncovered some surprising ideological bedfellows.
While this movement has attracted ultra-conservatives like Larry Pratt,
the founder of English Plus (as well as the Committee to Protect the Family,
Gun Owners of America, and U.S. Border Control), Dr. Tanton's roots are
in liberalism. His language- and immigration- restrictionist positions
evolved out of, and not in spite of, his environmental and population-
Politically, Official English fits no predictable pattern.
In Texas, 92 percent of Republican voters expressed their support in a
1988 straw poll, while Democratic leaders in the legislature blocked a
binding statewide referendum. And yet, the lead sponsor of Official English
has been a Democrat, while the Texas Republican hierarchy, hopeful of recruiting
more Hispanics, has quietly tried to sabotage the campaign. Meanwhile,
Republicans in the California Assembly have united in support of English
Only measures, prompting Governor George Deukmejian to veto bilingual education
bills. But in Florida, following a landslide vote to adopt Official English,
it was Republicans (largely Cuban Americans) who spearheaded the defeat
of Democratic legislation to enforce the amendment.
As a symbolic issue, language can carry a variety of political
meanings, depending on local conditions. Official English has affected
no two communities in quite the same way. Miami, the birthplace of the
English Only movement, illustrates the power of ethnicity to override ideology,
with liberal Jews attacking language rights and Cuban conservatives defending
them. Max Castro analyzes the Hispanophobic inspiration for Dade County's
"anti-bilingual ordinance" – the jealousies, cultural resentments,
and status anxieties that Anglo-Miamians frankly acknowledge. In Monterey
Park, California, where a similar backlash has greeted Chinese immigrants,
Official English has been tied to antidevelopment activism. John Horton
and José Calderón describe an attempt to navigate these waters
by a controlled-growth, ethnic-harmony coalition, which ultimately succeeded.
Southeast Asian refugees and Latino newcomers in Lowell, Massachusetts,
have encountered a more traditional nativist reception. Camilo Peréz-Bustillo
outlines the rise of English Only as an instrument to oppose bilingual,
Quantitative attempts to analyze support for Official
English remain at a primitive stage. One problem is that the public is
confused about the issue's implications, as revealed by opinion polls.
How the question is posed can be significant. For example, when the New
York Times/CBS News Poll asked whether government should conduct business
bilingually in areas with non-English- speaking minorities, or only in
English, respondents favored the latter by 60 percent to 36 percent. But
when the question changed slightly to imply that non-English-speakers might
be denied services under an English Only policy, respondents were equally
split, at 47 percent.<1> Simply
asking, "Should English be the official language?" tends to elicit
overwhelming sentiment in favor. A demographic breakdown yields few significant
patterns when 80-90 percent of voters are on the same side of the issue.
Nevertheless, after dissecting one of the more sophisticated
exit polls on Official English, Carol Schmid ventures some conclusions.
First, ethnicity (Hispanic or Anglo) is a significant determinant of opinions
on the issue. Second, in supporters' lack of variation across education
and income levels, English Only departs from the traditional model of conservative
social movements. Taking a more ethnographic approach, Joanne Bretzer explores
the symbolic function of language politics in Miami. She discovers links
between Anglo-conformity and nostalgia for a simpler, homogeneous community
– as if Official English could somehow turn back the clock.
If language restrictionism is not the answer, what is?
Mary Carol Combs describes the strengths and drawbacks of English
Plus, the major slogan and policy alternative advanced by opponents
of English Only. Despite the ranks of educators and civil rights advocates
who have rallied behind English Plus, it has yet to capture the popular
1. On June 19-23, 1986, the question was: "In
parts of this country where many people speak a language other than English,
should state and local governments conduct business in that language, as
well as in English, or should they only use English?" On May 11-14,
1987, the question was: "Would you favor or oppose an amendment to
the Constitution that requires federal, state, and local governments to
conduct business in English and not use other languages, even in places
where many people don't speak English?" The sample's margin of error
was plus or minus 3 percent.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: From LANGUAGE LOYALTIES:
A SOURCE BOOK ON THE OFFICIAL ENGLISH CONTROVERSY, by James Crawford, published
by the University of Chicago Press. Copyright © 1992 by the University
of Chicago. All rights reserved. This text may be used and shared in accordance
with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be archived
and redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice,
including copyright information, is carried and provided that the University
of Chicago Press is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving,
redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium,
requires the consent of both the author and the University of Chicago Press.