User:JennyRosen/Feuer, Avital (2008) Who does this language belong to? Personal narratives of language claim and identity

Feuer’s book deals with the relations between language learning and identity. The title itself is rather revealing, as the author asks “who the language in question belongs to” – an essential question in studies on language ideologies. The language in question is Hebrew and the context in which it is studied is in a Canadian university with about 50 000 students, placed in one of the largest urban centers in the country (32). As Feuer writes “ Although it could be presumed that all participants were enrolled in the class to study modern Hebrew, it was unclear which Hebrew they chose to study and how the greatly diverse backgrounds of their interlocutors would influence their meaning-making process” (55). Feuer had an /ethnographic approach/ in her study and started out with participant observations in the field (classroom). Along with participant observation, a focus group interview and individual interviews were done. 10 students and the teacher participated throughout the whole study. Moreover, after analyzing the transcript from the interviews, Feuer used e-mail correspondence to make follow up question. She motivates her choice of classroom by arguing that although a small number of Jews study modern Hebrew with the goal of communicative fluency, it is still worthwhile to examine the voices of committed learners (47). I found her arguments quite interesting, as she first assumes that the people who might be interested in studying Hebrew need to be Jews and, second, that she perceives them to be “committed learners” (which raises the question what is a committed learner) because they are in the advanced level

The following questions have guided the study: 1)	What unique framework of ethnic identity do students and teachers of Hebrew construct for themselves? 2)	What is the place of Hebrew in the participants’ ethnic identities? 3)	How did participants’ ethnic identity frameworks affect classroom dynamics?

Feuer finds her theoretical fundaments in the theories on language learning through dialogue and interaction, as presented by Vygotsky and Bakthin. While Vygotsky focuses on the mediated function of language between the intrapersonal and interpersonal, Bakthin focuses on the dialogic relationship of speech (2008:7). Feuer also found in her study that the participants created meaning by “taking words form each others mouths” and how they were motivated in their learning through affiliation with religious, national or other groupings (55). The emphasis on the dialogic feature of language learning can be seen in contrast to the idea of competence promoted by Chomsky, meaning that there are no idealized interlocutors with knowledge of the language and it norms but, instead, interlocutors that form their language according to the expectations and responses of each other (8). The two approaches to second language learning can be understood in terms of “acquisition metaphor” and “participation metaphor” (8). The importance of dialogic relationships is also essential in post colonial theories of ethnicity. Stuart Hall argues that individuals always position themselves in relation to the Other, as identification is made in opposition to the Other – an Other that is both an external phenomena as well as situated in the Self (10). Moreover, the Self is positioned within the narrative of the past of a social group (10). Identity is, therefore, based on using the resources of past history, language and culture in a personal process of becoming, which means that identity formation is not only concerned with the past but also with what the Self or the We might become in the future (10).

Another approach to identity formation is identity structure analysis (ISA), as presented by Weinreich, which focus on the varieties of identification within ethnic subgroups (11). As well as Hall, Weinreich, defines ethnic identity as dimensions of continuity between self-construal of past belonging (ancestry) and future ethnic aspirations (11). Three types of identifications within an ethnic group can be found: aspirational /role model identification (when a person tries to be like another person who is a member of the group or when one tries to dissociate him from members of the group), empathic identification (when a person is aware of the shared characteristics with the group) and conflicted identification (when someone contra-identifies with members in the group but still is aware that they share some characteristics) (11). Others have focused on the ethnolingustic identity: Giles and Johnson argue that language maintenance should be seen in relation to ethnic identification and they identified four central elements for language maintenance: (a) the individual’s strong identification with the ethnic group (b) individuals are aware of the status position of the group in relation to other groups (c) individuals perceive their status to be higher than of other groups and don’t identify with values and social identities of other groups (d) individuals perceive the boundaries of the in-group in related to the ethnolinguistic vitality (16). In the case of Feuer’s study, the awareness among the students of not belonging to the majority community was an important reason behind their strong identification with the Jewish community and to maintain the Hebrew language. However, some students expressed feelings of rejection from in-group members (gatekeepers to the Hebrew speaking/ Israeli community) while, at the same time, not belonging to the majority community. (111).

So how does an individual become a member of an ethnolingustic group? As pointed out by Guiora, second language speaker say that they feel like a different person and behave differently while speaking the new language. The participants in Feuer’s study don’t express such feelings but emphasis that they only feel like their true selves in their mother tongues (66). However, the permeability (flexibility) of the language boundaries is important for the possibility of taking on a new identity (16). Schuman argues in the same direction, meaning that the degree to which a person acquires a language is proportional to how much he or she acculturate and adjust to the host society: therefore, native-like proficiency is an evidence of successful integration into the host society (17). Similar theories describe the transition from one identity to another in the process of learning a new language. The studies of integrativeness and ethnolinguistic identity connects the attitude of the individuals towards the target language group or ethnic memberships groups with the success of language learning. This process can be defined in terms of “in-betweenness”, displacement and hybridity. Feuer separates between heritage and immigrant language context –the former was born in the diaspora and uses the language of their ethnic group or homeland, while the later refers to immigrants who immigrated to the current country of residence and use both their native language as well as the dominant language of the new country (21). However, I remain critical to the relevance of such a division. In both cases, language learners negotiated their hybrid language behaviours and identities to affiliate with one of the competing social groups. Most studies in this field situate the individual between the in-group ethnic minority and the out-group dominant majority as individuals are forced to choose one of them or are placed by others in one (26). However, such polarity may be too simplistic, as there is heterogeneity and divisions also inside the in-group (27). Moreover, the great divine between the two groups may not be as clear as described.

Moreover, the author also uses Bourdieu’s understanding of language as symbolic capital in the linguistic market (2008:6).

One of the main questions of the study is concerned with Jewish identity – Who is a Jew? Feuer writes that while earlier studies have sought to define Jewish identity, her study is more prescriptive in proposing solutions to promoting Jewish involvement and continuity (14). Traditionally, the Hebrew language was one of the cornerstones of Jewish identity as the language for the Jewish people (57). According to Feuer, Jews in the Diaspora were often bi- multilingual and strived for integration or assimilation in various degrees, but still failed being accepted as authentic members of the imagined communities of the nations in which they lived (116). The hegemony and enforcement of Hebrew upon immigrants to Israel served as an important tool to “overcome” the diversity and multilingualism in order to build a modern nation state (“one country- one people – one language”) (45). The new national identity was represented in the sabra – a young, muscular, hard working, Hebrew speaking man (in contrast to the weak holocaust survivors). The essential institutions for the promotion of Hebrew and a shared national identity were the Ulpanim and the Israeli army (in which women also had to serve) (46). Feuer argues that the /hegemony of Hebrew/ came to be challenged due to the large immigration from USSR starting in 1989. She believes that Israel today is becoming a multilingual society]] (46).

Feuer writes quite a lot about her own position in relation to the study, in the line of reflexivity pointed out in qualitative methods. Moving in between Israel and Canada, her own negotiation of identity (ies) can be seen as an important factor in study, and her work can in one way be seen as part of her own identity puzzle. Reading the study, I reflected a great deal on the role of the researcher in the study. As Feuer herself points out, she was herself a participant in her study – but the question is: as what - as a researcher, a student or as a teacher? How did the fact that she spoke to the participant in Hebrew (and with fluency) seemed to have positioned her as an Israeli in the classroom.

The space in the Hebrew language classroom can be seen as a microcosm of divisions between minority group members and the majority community in Canada, and also between Jewish communities and non-Jewish majorities worldwide (77).The initial categorization of the students in the class was done by their pronunciation (and partly their names), with Feuer classifying them as Canadians, Israelis and Russian according to their accents in Hebrew (49). It is interesting to note that the first categorizations were based upon national identity and the classification enforced a strong tie between a specific language behaviour and national identity. Along the way, the initial categorizations partly changed, especially since the categorization “Russian” showed to be irrelevant (49) and Feuer, therefore, remained with the groups of Canadians and Israelis. Moreover, as the study moved on, the religious identities of the participants became relevant to Feuer. As she writes, the first categorization of who was religious or not was based on the appearance of the student (kipot). Although it turned out to be great heterogeneity in the groups of Canadians and Israelis, these are the two groups that Feuer used for understanding the identity work in the classroom. Based on the categorizations of Israelis and Canadians, Feuer explores convergence and divergence in the classroom. She finds that identity was founded on self- and other-defined classifications according to nationality, religious affiliation, and degree of observance (85).

As mentioned earlier, Hebrew can be seen as a unifying force of/ for the Jewish people, which also was found in the classroom studied. The Hebrew class served to strengthen the Jewish subgroup and became and intrapersonal connector to an important part of the Self, for the participant (58). The class and the usage of Hebrew among the participants strengthened their bonds to a Jewish subgroup and the boundaries to other groups in terms of solidarity and exclusivity (58). Therefore, the Hebrew language can be seen to function as a unifying symbol rather than a mean for communication (59). However, while the Canadians used Hebrew and the belonging to the state of Israel mainly as markers of a membership in and identification with Diaspora Jewish groups, for the Israelis it was a central parts of their essence (62). While Hebrew served mostly as a symbol for the Canadians, the Israelis viewed it also as a mean for communication with family and friends. The difference between the two groups was also reflected in regard to their motivation, speech contexts and speech communities. The Israelis used Hebrew to communicate with other Israelis in Canada, while the Canadians wanted the language in order to bond with other Jews in the Diaspora (64). Still, both groups can be seen as learning the language in order to integrate and bond with people who share similar identity compositions (69). However, the notion of one monolithic target language group of native speaker (that the learner wants to integrate into) can be criticised: the heterogeneity of the groups into which learners strive to integrate seems far more complex (71). The Canadians placed Hebrew as a central aspect of the religious aspect of Jewishness, while Israelis defined themselves more as Jewish in terms of nationality than of religion: for them, being Jewish means being Israeli (73-74).

Another unifying experience of the group is the Jewish history of oppression and Diaspora, anti-Semitism and the holocaust, as well an understanding of Zionism as a reaction (and solution) to these hardships (80). Feuer writes that “there existed a shared consciousness of the historical positioned common narrative of the Jews in the classroom” and that the students were assumed to have knowledge of the struggle of the Jewish people through history. Moreover, the author writes that the group shared the experience of being Othered by the majority community (117) It is interesting to see how oppression, anti-Semitism and exclusion from majority communities was an important part of the students understanding of their in-group, although they lived in an assumingly multicultural and tolerant country (117). I would like to comment on the shared narrative concerning the history of the Jewish people, since this narrative includes mainly the experiences of Ashkenazi Jews and not of Sephardic Jews. In this case, the experiences of one group in the in-group become the narrative for the whole group, marginalizing others’ experiences. This shows not only the heterogeneity of the in-group but also the differences of power among its members and different subgroups.

Although the students in the class were categorised as Canadians and Israelis, there existed a tension between them and the national populations that used English and Hebrew (80). The Canadians did not feel a sense of belonging to Canada and they felt different from the majority population. Some of the Canadians also had immigrant experiences of trying to integrate into the Canadian society. The Israelis identified themselves as Israelis in the Canadian context, but felt that in Israel they were defined as Russian rather than Israelis, which is visible in the interviews with Yana (83). The teacher, Aviva, although she spoke of the students in terms of Israelis and Canadians, she also stated that neither of them were true Israelis since they were not born in Israel (88).

Other factors that divided the class’ students in groups of Israelis and Canadians were based on the fluency and language use in the classroom. While the Israelis spoke fluent Hebrew out of “intuition”, the Canadians had to study hard for achieving grammar and skills in the language, still lacking the fluency (92-93). Although the curriculum of the course had a focus towards knowledge in grammar, the currency on the linguistic market in the class was spoken fluency (94).

The question of being religious is very interesting in the example of Meg, who talked a great deal about spirituality and how through the Hebrew language she was communicating to God. Yet still, Meg was not categorized by others as religious, since she didn’t fit into the norm of the religious Jew category, as she held other believes. Feuer states that ethnic minority members often have been identified according to religious, linguistic and ethnic labels that promote in-group solidarity, but as her research shows, the categorical labelling are often unrelated to the categories that they represent (110). It is also important to notice that the labels varied according to context.

An important part of the identity work in the classroom was done by positioning the Self in relation to notions of in-group Othering, mainly through the process of language claim (116). The Israelis held the symbolic power in the group due to their oral fluency in Hebrew, and used this dominance to define the identities of other students through their speech acts (119). Moreover, the Canadians performed their identities as the minority Other both in relation to the majority community but also in relation to the Israelis who claimed the right of the Hebrew language (120).

Yana stated that she didn’t think that a person can be considered to be a Jew if she/he didn’t know Hebrew (98).

In the conclusion, Feuer summarizes her three main questions:

1)	What unique framework of ethnic identity do students and teachers of Hebrew construct for themselves? The group identities most commonly agreed upon in the classroom were in terms of Canadian and Israeli. Feuer writes that “Nationality as the fundamental means of identification was most evident in the groups of students self- and other-defined as Israelis” (102). The identification as Israelis was among them in accordance with a modernist and essentialist understanding of language and nationhood (Hebrew and Israel) (102). However, the Israeli students felt ambiguous about their Israeliness due to their position as Russians in Israel. Another factor was the connection between Jewish religiousness and the state of Israel for the Israelis who identified themselves as secular (103). The Canadian students didn’t identify themselves as Jewish in national terms but rather in ethno-religious. Although they felt a connection to Israel, they didn’t claim right to it in a national sense (103). For the Canadian, the label of Jewish and Zionist, therefore, became more important than that of Israeli, an identity which they didn’t feel they could claim. Still, neither of the groups held strong identification with Canada, which may be due to the lack of nationalism and patriotism in the country; a factor that, according to Feuer, may explain the strong identification with Israel (104).

2)	What is the place of Hebrew in participants’ ethnic identities? For the Israelis knowledge and fluency in Hebrew proved their membership in the community of true Israelis and an Israeli identity, as well as excluded from it those who didn’t share this proficiency in Hebrew (105). For the Canadians, Hebrew was just one part of the Jewish identity, and the lack of fluency served as an obstacle for becoming Israelis and claiming the language and country as theirs (105). In this sense, the native-speakerness of Hebrew was the foundation of the Israelis’ identity as both Jewish and Israeli (105). The construction of the native-speaker, therefore, showed to be an important factor in the classroom determining who had access to the imagined community and who did not, a construction (in this case) based on oral fluency (107).

3)	How did participants’ ethnic identity frameworks affect classroom dynamics? Feuer states that there were multiple layers of authority in the classroom and that the students and teacher often made contradicting remarks concerning who was a native speaker and who was not (see for example Aviva (teacher) 107). From the theories of learning presented by Vygostksy, the classroom (with its mix of speakers with different skills of Hebrew) could serve as an excellent arena for learning. But in the classroom, as Feuer points out, the Canadians didn’t see the interaction with the Israelis as a possibility for learning (through raising the zones of proximal development) (108). Although the teacher, as well the text book, focused on the formal aspect of the language, treating all students as equal learners the currency of the linguistic market was oral, communicative fluency, which was what the Israelis tried to maintain and the Canadians tried to achieve (108). Because of this inequality, the Canadians did not take on the aspirational/ role model identification but rather the conflicted identification category (108) as presented earlier. The Canadians knew that they shared similar qualities with the members of the group but also contra-identified with members or diverged from them (108).

Individuals in the classroom defined themselves and others in relation to who they considered had the right to claim the Hebrew language as their own, and other members of the ethnic group (Jewish) who didn’t have this right were excluded (109).

Although the class was in modern Hebrew, the teacher opened up for discussion on Jewish issues, thereby creating a space were the students could explore the different aspects of their identities (121).

I was very inspired by Feuer’s text. First, because the main questions in the book are closely related to my own research. Second, because I can identify with some of the struggles presented in the book, as I my identity as a Hebrew speaker is very conflictive. There are, however, two important factors that I feel are left out in the study. Already from the start, Feuer assumes that the students in the Hebrew class are Jewish in some sense. This is an interesting assumption, as you would probably not expect all students in a Japanese class to have some kind of Japanese roots. Moreover, Feuer seems to ignore that fact that although the state of Israel is by definition a Jewish state, there are approximately one million non-Jewish Palestinian Israelis living in Israel (although as second rate citizens). Many of these people are fluent in Hebrew, but their existence is neglected in the study. Moreover, I was surprised by how the Palestinian – Israeli and Arab-Israeli conflicts were so invisible in Feuer’s writing. However, I did find in some of the citations from the interviews that participants mentioned this. In my view, it seems problematic not to discuss Israeli identity formation in terms of Othering without seeing the Palestinian Other.

Comments from Annaliina:

I agree with what you are saying in the final section of the text as I myself was very surprised to find so little discussion on the conflicts Israel has had with the Arab world in general and Palestinians in particular. It is obvious that the events in Gaza in December-January affected my reading of the text and it should be remembered that the study was conducted and the dissertation written before those events. Nevertheless, the conflict in the Middle East has been an ongoing one for decades, or centuries if you wish, and the fact that Feuer doesn't really involve it in her otherwise well-established and interesting presentation seems to me somewhat confusing. As you conclude, Othering as one of central themes of the study is highly interesting not only as in-group conceptualization and identity formation, which is clearly illustrated by Feuer, but also towards the outside Others. When reading between the lines it is possible to make interpretations where the Israeli/Jewish identity is formed through reflections of others, but by not "writing out" the Palestinian/Arab others Feuer leaves many questions unanswered. I can think of a couple of reasons for doing that. Maybe it was a result of conscious choice; creating focus by leaving those questions outside the scope of the study as the themes discussed; language, identity and culture are already vast and difficult to delimit. Or, perhaps, the invisibility of the Palestine/Arab-Israeli conflicts in the text is a reflection of Feuer's own mindset in which the sovereignity of Israel is the core that should not be challenged. Issues of nationalism and territorialism, though, are present in many other ways.