Pierre Bourdieu, a French sociologist, has used terms from economics to describe sociological matters, including the use of language in society. One of these terms is ‘capital’. Economists define it as ‘assets which are capable of generating income and which have themselves been produced’. The essence of capital is that ‘it represents deferred consumption’. Bourdieu has expanded the meaning to cover such phenomena as the use of language. Linguistic capital is the capacity to produce expressions suited for the cultural market i.e. the words, turns of phrase, pronunciation etc which give advantage in a certain situation.
An excellent example of this is the study and use of
rhetoric---the art of using words effectively---which has been used by many
successful public figures notably Winston Churchill. I mention Churchill
because he actually wrote about the power of words to create effects. In his
novel Savrola (1900), Churchill
described how Savrola, an idealized character based upon himself, led a
revolution by giving a stirring speech. But this speech was rehearsed. A lot of
labour had gone in the choice of words so as to create a cadence, an evocative
peroration, a mesmerizing flow of words. Churchill himself became a master at
exactly this sort of magic in parliament. For him, the art of public speaking
was not just social capital, it was political capital also.
Churchill was an Englishman and English was the language
of the British parliament. But the irony is that all Englishmen did not have an
equal chance of speaking as effectively. They did not all possess the same
social capital for the following reasons: First, they did not have the same
cognitive abilities; second, they were not equally educated or had the time and
inclination to educate themselves; third, and very importantly, they did not
speak standard English in their homes or in their schools. While, in theory, a
poor boy too could possess as superior cognitive abilities as a Duke’s grandson
(though dietary insufficiency does create cognitive problems), he could hardly
aspire to the same kind of education, or the leisure to be able to read books
or, most crucially, speak standard English. Churchill was born with the social
capital of ‘standard English’, complete with an upper class accent, because he
was the Duke of Marlborough’s grandson. Moreover, he was educated at Harrow, an
upper class school, which polished his accent. This advantage a working class boy
would never have. He would be born in families speaking dialects---Derbyshire,
Yorkshire, Cockney, Brummy, Scots---and his school would not change them
completely. So, if he wanted to be an effective parliamentary speaker he would
have to work much harder than Churchill to acquire this social capital, the
right accent, to acquire the approbation of his fellow parliamentarians and
power over their minds.
Now let us come to Pakistan. We have 69 language listed
in the Ethnologue, a publication of
the Summer Institute of Linguistics, under the name of the country. However,
the major languages according to the census of 1981 are: Punjabi (spoken by
44.15 per cent people); Pashto (15.42); Sindhi (14.10); Siraiki (10.53); Urdu (7.57);
Balochi (3.57) and ‘Others’ (4.66). Since Siraiki, Punjabi, Hindko, Potohari,
Pahari etc are mutually intelligible, they may be regarded as constituting the varieties
of a great language spread out form the cities of the N.W.F.P upto Delhi.
Let us see now whether these Pakistani languages are
social capital and, if so, under what circumstances. First, Punjabi---the
language of the most numerous and dominant section of the Pakistani
population---is ‘capital’ only in the family, among intimate male friends, in
the streets of Punjab and perhaps for camaraderie. In certain social circles,
even in the middle and upper classes where Urdu and English are used otherwise,
one would feel left out if one does not enjoy a joke or a song in Punjabi.
Young men, even from English-medium schools, learn to get along in Punjabi to
give a street-credible, tough guy, down-to-earth, no-nonsense kind of image.
The women of their class, however, do not share in this macho sub-culture. They
keep using Urdu or English, the languages of sophistication. Only in marriage
ceremonies they condescend to sing a few Punjabi songs but that is analogous to
an American resident in Pakistan putting in an odd ‘hookah’ or ‘rulli’ for
decoration in the drawing room.
Punjabi immediately becomes social stigma rather than
capital in the world of public interaction. Indeed, even in the middle-and
upper-class drawing room it is more the deviation from the norm than the norm.
But in the court, the conference room, the parliament, the medical consultant’s
room---in all the domains of power---it is not the language of work. It may be
a concession granted to the illiterate but it is not the currency used in those
elitist market places. To get a job of a middling level of power you must know
standard, written Urdu in Pakistani Punjab but not written Punjabi. To get the
highest jobs you must know English. Skills in these two languages are cashable
in this market of power. Skills in Punjabi, in the absence of skills in Urdu
and English, are not cashable. In short, Punjabi does not carry social capital
in the domains of power. Indeed, knowing Punjabi alone carries stigma.
Sindhi is better off as knowledge in written Sindhi can
procure some lower level jobs in Sindh. However, one cannot rise high even in
Sindh, at least in the world of modern employment, without knowing Urdu and
English. But Sindhi has a high symbolic value as an identity marker. It helps one
become a member of the Sindhi community: This is an important role in Sindh
where identity preservation is politically, culturally and even economically
significant. Some jobs are, after all, dependent on other members of the
community who ensure that you are a member of the group by testing your
language skills--- skills which the job itself may never use later but which
are a badge of identity to enable you to enter a reserved job.
This role of an identity marker is also reserved for
Pashto but skill in written Pashto is not cashable. There are hardly any good
jobs for those who know Pashto alone. It does not, therefore, have high social
capital. However, like Sindhi, it does not carry stigma either. It is an
identity marker and it gives a sense of belonging, a sense of pride, a sense of
togetherness.
Other languages are somewhere in between. Most people are
positive towards their languages but they do have a rough sense of language
hierarchy based upon social capital. English comes at the top followed by Urdu.
Their own language is at the bottom though, in the case of identity-conscious
people, their mother tongue is proclaimed to be number one. In practice, the
circumstances being what they are, people are pragmatic enough to acquire
social capital through learning English and Urdu. Sometimes they do not burden
their children with their own language because they want to empower them so
much by learning the languages of power that they have no time or energy for
their own language.
What creates social capital? As far as languages are
concerned, the state’s policies are the major factor. Persian was used in the
Mughal court---indeed, not only the Mughals but other rulers succeeding them
also used it---and in the other domains of power (bureaucracy, judiciary,
military, education, high culture etc). It dominated other languages and
devalued them. It was used both in Punjab and Sindh by the local rulers for the
highest functions of the state. It, therefore, possessed social capital. Those
who spoke it were considered civilized, sophisticated, cultured and
trustworthy. They could attain access to the sources of power (the durbar) and, if they wanted them, obtain
jobs wielding influence.
Then the British state withdrew its patronage from
Persian and it lost its social capital. It took almost half a century to lose
it and even now knowledge of Persian is seen as a sign of old world
sophistication. But it is no longer in fashion. It is useless for the domains
of power in Pakistan now nor does it unlock the doors of drawing rooms. That is
the property of English.
The policy of the Pakistani state is no different from
that of the British state. English is still the language of the highest offices
of the state, the corporate sector, the most dominant media, the most
fashionable NGOs, the most exclusive clubs and drawing rooms and the most
prestigious schools, universities and think tanks. The social capital of this
language is the highest in the land because of these reasons. The public
understands this very well because of which it allows itself to be fleeced by
schools which advertise themselves as ‘English medium’ schools. These may be
two-roomed places in a slum but they charge a fees which poor people pay only
at the cost of almost starving themselves. Then there are the real ‘English
medium’ schools which charge so much that they become rich people’s clubs. The
middle class squeezes in somehow by working overtime and, if possible, fleecing
those whom they can fleece.
The social capital one acquires gives one confidence
which passes for intelligence. It is cashed for good jobs. It puts others at a
disadvantage and so helps in making one powerful.
The social capital of Urdu is less than that of English
but more than the indigenous languages of Pakistan. As no policies have been
made making the latter the languages of power, Urdu dominates them in the world
of power and high culture. This is resented by the ethnic activists of the dominated
languages. This happened in Pakistan in East Bengal (1948 and 1952), Sindh,
N.W.F.P and Baluchistan where language-movements symbolic of ethnic identity
challenged the domination of the centre. In short languages deprived of social
capital reacted by acquiring symbolic identity-capital. This capital was used
for mobilizing a group and obtaining rights, autonomy and concessions from the
centre.
To sum up, language has social capital. What creates this
capital, above all, is the policy of the politically and culturally dominant
elites. Because of these policies the dominant languages are rich i.e. have
more knowledge, arts, literature etc---precisely because they are used in so
many domains of power. However, there are languages, like Persian, which
dominated a large part of the world because of their prestige as languages of
high culture. But them, Persian acquired this high prestige because it was the
language of an ancient empire. In short, social capital is intimately connected
with power. It is created by power and it has the potential to make others
powerful. Such are the ironies of life.