This art icle was downloaded by: [ 82.136.252.123] On: 10 February 2014, At : 11: 36 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Language, Identity & Education Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions for aut hors and subscript ion informat ion: ht t p:/ / www.t andfonline.com/ loi/ hlie20 In the Name of Language: School-Based Language Revitalization, Strategic Solidarities, and State Power in the French Basque Country Kai A. Heidemann a a Maast richt Universit y Published online: 10 Feb 2014. To cite this article: Kai A. Heidemann (2014) In t he Name of Language: School-Based Language Revit alizat ion, St rat egic Solidarit ies, and St at e Power in t he French Basque Count ry, Journal of Language, Ident it y & Educat ion, 13:1, 53-69, DOI: 10.1080/ 15348458.2014.864213 To link to this article: ht t p:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/ 15348458.2014.864213 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he “ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis, our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors, and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising out of t he use of t he Cont ent . This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s & Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm sand- condit ions Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 13: 53–69, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1534-8458 print / 1532-7701 online DOI: 10.1080/15348458.2014.864213 In the Name of Language: School-Based Language Revitalization, Strategic Solidarities, and State Power in the French Basque Country Kai A. Heidemann Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 Maastricht University This article explores the mobilization dynamics of a school-based minority language revitalization initiative in the French Basque Country, known as the Ikastola Movement. Bringing the study of language revitalization into dialogue with social movement theory, I discuss how the solidarity of Basque language activists was influenced by state-level structures of power. Focusing on an early phase of mobilization from 1975 to 1981, I consider how political opposition to the Ikastola Movement created a series of ideological and institutional struggles for activists. I then examine how these experiences of struggle strengthened the solidarity of activists in the long run. Ultimately, I argue that the discursive and organizational solidarities mobilized by activists were crucial in allowing them to realize important political gains during the 1980s to 1990s. By way of conclusion I suggest avenues for future research on school-based revitalization movements that draw attention to the horizontal and vertical dynamics of collective action. Key words: language revitalization, language policy, education, social movements, Basque, France The grassroots efforts of linguistic minorities to resist and reverse intergenerational processes of language shift have frequently been shown to entail a strategic targeting of educational policies and programs (Churchill, 1996; Fishman, 1980, 1991, 2001; Freeland & Patrick, 2004; Grenoble & Whaley, 2006; Hinton, 2003; Hornberger, 1998, 2009; Paulston, 1994; Paulston & Heidemann 2006; Tollefson, 2002).1 While most scholars agree that schools alone cannot ensure the resurgence of languages in decline, it has also been observed that “where schooling in a minority language does not exist, the chances of the long-term survival of that language in modern society may be severely diminished” (Baker, 2001, p. 72). Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find a contemporary revitalization initiative that has not sought to influence the educational system in a more or less instrumental manner. Although previous scholarship has done well to illustrate how and why education can reinforce the vitality of minority languages, less effort has been made to theorize regarding the mobilization practices taken up by linguistic minorities as they seek to 1 For the purposes of this article I focus my attention exclusively on revitalization initiatives targeting the institutional context of formal education or “schooling”’ at the primary and secondary levels. I thus exclude higher education, adult education, nonformal education, and forms of revitalization in noneducational settings, such as mass media and the arts. Correspondence should be sent to Kai A. Heidemann, University College Maastricht, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. E-mail: kai.heidemann@maastrichtuniversity.nl Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 54 HEIDEMANN influence education in the name of language vitality. This is to say that while the terms movement, campaign, activism, and advocacy are often used to describe school-centered revitalization initiatives, the forms of collective action that shape such efforts are rarely the primary topic of concern. As a result, the struggles and strategies that characterize revitalization in education remain loosely conceptualized and undertheorized. By tapping into the insights of social movement theory (e.g., della Porta & Diani, 2005; Melucci 1996; Snow, Soule, & Kriesi, 2004), new insights can be generated on the factors that both fuel and frustrate school-based revitalization movements. In this article I bring the study of minority language revitalization into dialogue with social movement theory so as to explore the mobilization dynamics of a school-based revitalization initiative within the French Basque Country known as the Ikastola Movement. Looking at an especially influential phase of mobilization from the autumn of 1975 to the spring of 1981, I consider how the strategic solidarities of activists affiliated with the Ikastola Movement were both positively and negatively shaped by state-based structures of power and policy making. By strategic solidarities I mean the empowering forms of intersubjective unity and commitment through which Basque activists worked to realize objectives and overcome obstacles. Drawing on qualitative case study data, I illustrate how the strategic solidarities of activists were shaped by an enduring tide of state-level opposition to the Ikastola Movement (henceforth, IM). While this political opposition complicated and constrained the mobilization efforts of activists, I also show how it strengthened the discursive and organizational unanimity of their collective actions. Consequently, I argue that the strategic solidarities mobilized during the formative years of 1975 to 1981 were critical in allowing the IM to realize important gains in later years when the French political system would become relatively more open and accommodating. By way of conclusion I draw from my findings to briefly suggest a path for future research on the mobilization dynamics of school-based revitalization initiatives beyond the French Basque Country. While the dynamics of school-based revitalization vary from case to case, I argue that there are two interlinked issues that activists must contend with: (a) the horizontal reproduction of solidarity and (b) the vertical navigation of political power structures. While the former refers to the intersubjective labors needed to continually cultivate and channel the agency of active supporters, the latter refers to an instrumental engagement with the political power structures that typically govern educational systems. Theorization of the interplay between these horizontal and vertical dynamics, I contend, can shed important light on the micro- and macro-level factors that shape school-based revitalization movements. SOCIAL MOVEMENTS, SOLIDARITY, AND THE STATE One area that remains largely untapped in the study of education and language revitalization relates to the study of social movements (see also, Crossley, 2002; della Porta & Diani, 2005; Snow et al., 2004). While this interdisciplinary field comprises diverse perspectives and approaches, one fundamental area of inquiry relates to the solidarity of social movement constituents (Diani, 1997; Gamson, 1975; Hunt & Benford, 2004; Melucci, 1996).2 Solidarity can 2 The study of solidarity within the social movement literature stems from a long legacy of scholarship linked to the work of pioneering scholars such as Emile Durkheim, Antonio Gramsci, and G. H. Mead (e.g., Bayertz, 1999). Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 IN THE NAME OF LANGUAGE 55 be defined as the affective and instrumental bonds that work to ground and guide the practices of grassroots actors as they formulate and engage in processes of mobilization. The concept of solidarity focuses analytical attention on the empowering forms of intersubjectivity or “togetherness” that are needed to sustain collective action over time (Hunt & Benford, 2004). Within this context, the apparent unity that underlies any social movement must be analyzed and explained as the outcome of continuous interactions taking shape between actors and their environment (Melucci, 1996). This entails understanding the shared identities and interests that motivate people to participate in social movements as well as how participants work to coordinate their practices in the pursuit of strategic objectives. For example, while affective ties based on ethnicity and linguistic loyalty are central to the emergence of revitalization movements (Edwards, 1985; May, 2012), such ties must be accompanied by instrumental bonds built through the strategic labor of defining objectives, identifying obstacles, evaluating opportunities, devising tactics, and deploying resources. In other words, collective concerns for the vitality of a given language are not enough to fuel school-based revitalization movements as these projects necessitate persistent levels of coordination and resourcefulness to keep going and growing over time. While tens of thousands of people in the French Basque Country may enthusiastically identify as “Basque” and support the normalization of Basque in the educational system (Oyharçabal, 1999), for instance, only a fraction of this populace has committed itself to the onerous task of revitalization. In this light, understanding how people participate in a revitalization movement must be accompanied by, but also distinguished from considerations of why they choose to support it. A primary goal of social movement analysis has been to understand the internal practices through which actors establish and reproduce their solidarity (i.e., issues of agency) as well as the external factors that variously facilitate and constrain these solidarity-building practices (i.e., issues of structure). One of the most significant external factors identified by scholars as shaping the collective identities and interests of social movement actors is the broader political system within which activists are embedded, particularly state-based regimes of citizenship and governance (Kriesi, 2004; Meyer, 1999). Scholars have often invoked the concept of political opportunity structure (Kriesi, 2004) so as to explore how a given political system is more or less open and amenable to a given group of social movement actors at a given point in time. Although political opportunity structures vary across time and place, several defining features include the ideological resonance of movement-based claims within the political arena, the accessibility of the polity to grassroots actors, and the availability of political allies. The solidarity of social movement actors is thus typically theorized as emerging from their efforts to navigate the ideological and institutional contours of the broader political landscape. Given the historically prominent role of the national state in shaping language planning and policies in education (Tollefson, 2002), it should come as no surprise that school-centered revitalization movements often exert considerable energies evaluating and engaging with state-based structures of power. By targeting educational systems, minority language activists often challenge the assimilatory logic and nationalist legacies that have defined state-level language planning and policy making in the modern era (May, 2012). In the process of articulating such challenges, grassroots language activists can often experience significant backlash and opposition from political elites and power brokers. While such political reactions often work to complicate, constrain, or even curtail revitalization efforts, they can also have the inverse positive effect of strengthening the unity and commitment of activists. Indeed, social movement scholars such as Earl (2003) and Opp and Ruehl (1990) have argued that state-level efforts to control and repress mobilization can 56 HEIDEMANN work to fuel the agency of activists through a heightening of grievances and protest. In this article I draw on these insights so as to illustrate how the collective efforts of Basque language activists to transform the French educational system into an instrument of revitalization were shaped and motivated by state-level opposition to the IM. Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 CASE It has been estimated that the Basque language in contemporary France is spoken with widely varying levels of proficiency by roughly 65,000 adults, with less than 10% of this population believed to consist of “active bilinguals” who use the language both frequently and proficiently (Oyharçabal, 1999). Unlike the situation of relative maintenance and revitalization that has emerged through the years within the Autonomous Basque Community of Spain or Euskadi, the status of Basque in France is characterized by pervasive marginality and decline. One key factor contributing to this situation is the traditional lack of strong institutional support for minority languages within the French public education system (Azurmendi, Bachoc, & Zabaleta 2001; Coyos, 2005). The historically weak levels of educational support for Basque as well as for most regional minority languages within France are linked to two entrenched, but increasingly beleaguered, features of French political culture: (a) a pervasive ideological disdain for policies promoting minority rights and ethnolinguistic pluralism in the public sphere and (b) a highly centralized or “statist” structure of governance that often limits the capacity of grassroots actors to reform public policies and institutions from below.3 Cumulatively, these factors have combined to complicate the ability of grassroots language activists to access, let alone influence, the state-level arena of educational policy making. School-centered revitalization initiatives within France have thus been shaped by attempts to navigate an unaccommodating political landscape. Perhaps one of the most vibrant forces of revitalization in the French Basque Country has been a community-based schooling initiative known as the Ikastola Movement.4 As part of a broader wave of Basque ethnic mobilization, the IM was founded in the city of Bayonne in 1969 by a handful of bascophone parents who were disillusioned by the exclusion of Basque in the public school system. These actors drew inspiration from the preexisting “southern” IM, which had been in various stages of overt and covert mobilization within the Spanish Basque Country since the 1930s (Garat, 2005).5 The pioneers of the “northern” IM launched their initiative through the founding of an organization called Seaska (cradle). Through the decades Seaska has spearheaded 3 For a more extensive discussion of the legacy and landscape of minority language politics in France, see Ager, 1999; Cohen, 2000; Judge, 2007; Laborde, 2001; Safran, 1999, and Wright, 2000. 4 It should be noted that during the 1980s other organizations emerged in the French Basque Country that also targeted the education system, such as Ikas-Bi (public schools) and Euskal Haziak (Catholic schools). 5 The IM first emerged in the Spanish Basque Country around 1931 as part of a broader wave of modern Basque ethnic nationalism. During the oppressive years of the Franco regime (1936–1975), however, the Ikastolas were formally banned and the movement went into abeyance. The IM then resurfaced in the 1950s after a relative loosening of antiBasque language policies. The movement later gained powerful momentum with the resurgence of Basque nationalism, the rise of democracy and regional autonomy during the 1960s–1970s. Under a series of Basque language laws passed during the early 1980s, the Ikastolas were normalized and gained substantial levels of governmental funding. Today, there are more than 50,000 students attending more than 100 Ikastolas in Euskadi as well as Navarra. For a more detailed Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 IN THE NAME OF LANGUAGE 57 the IM in France by acting as the primary locus of organizational decision-making as well as the principle interlocutor with political authorities and the general public.6 The Ikastolas in France are formal and accredited schools founded upon an immersive model of dual-language bilingual education, whereby Basque is emphasized as the principal medium of instruction and learning across all subjects.7 Although Basque is prioritized in the Ikastolas, French is actively utilized and Seaska’s ultimate goal is to cultivate multilingual persons. While only a handful of Ikastolas were operating as preschools during the early 1970s, by 1975 Seaska had entered the field of primary education and by 1981 it had expanded into secondary education, with the first bascophone high school or lycée completed in 1990. As of December 2012, there were 29 Ikastolas with nearly 200 teachers working with more than 2,680 students situated across all levels of preschool, primary, and secondary education, including bilingual preparation for the national brevet and baccalaureate exams. Seaska has always operated the IM within the realm of associative education/l’education associatif : an institutional niche for the development of private schools advocating alternative educational programs, which are eligible for varying amounts of public funds depending upon contractual conditions negotiated with the French Ministry of National Education (MNE) (Auduc, 2002).8 Although the Ikastolas have always been private schools, since the latter half of the 1970s Seaska has been steadfast in its determination to generate increased forms of state-level support for the Ikastolas. The first moment of material recognition came in 1983 with the allocation of a small grant from the French Ministry of Culture. While other forms of recognition would be sporadically attained in later years, the most significant gain to date was realized in 1994 when Seaska achieved a permanent contract of association with the MNE. This contract not only was an ideological validation of the IM by the French state but also helped to allocate public funds to critical areas such as teacher salaries, teacher training, and curricular development.9 Seaska’s capacity to gain increased political support during the 1980s and 1990s was due in great part to changes that transpired in the French political system after the election of President François Mitterrand in 1981. These changes included (a) a moderate devolution of state power to the regional levels of French government, (b) an increasing ideological acceptance of bilingualism and regional languages within the French education system, and (c) escalating pressure placed on France by European agencies to protect and promote the status of autochthonous minority language communities.10 Emerging gradually over the course of the 1980s–1990s, these macro-level discussion of the Spanish context see Basurko Montrico, 1989; Lopez Goñi, 2003; or http://www.ikastola.net/web/default. php. 6 It should be noted that in the years following Seaska’s emergence in 1969 similar initiatives arose in other parts of France such as the Catalan-language organization Bressola (est. 1975), the Breton association Diwan (est. 1977), the Occitan association Calandreta (est. 1979) and the Alsatian association ABCM-Zweisprachigkeit (est. 1992). 7 For general information about Seaska and the Ikastolas in France, see www.seaska.net. 8 Associative schooling was originally developed in 19th century France so as to both promote and regulate the freedom of religious education. Only about 10% of associative schools in France today are secular. By law, state-level funding of associative schools cannot exceed 49% of total operating costs (Auduc, 2002). 9 At the time of this writing (December 2012), the Ikastolas continued to operate under a permanent contract of association with the MNE. 10 For a thorough discussion of how these macro-level processes influenced the landscape of language politics in France, see Ager, 1999; Cohen, 2000; Heidemann, 2012; Judge, 2007; and Safran, 1999. Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 58 HEIDEMANN political changes proved advantageous for the IM in that they provided empowering opportunities for activists to gain newfound levels of access and legitimacy within the French political arena. However, while these macro-institutional changes were very influential for the IM, I argue that the political successes realized by Seaska during the 1980s–1990s were largely the result of the affective and instrumental solidarities cultivated by activists in prior years. In brief, I contend that the discursive and organizational practices deployed by Basque activists over the course of the 1970s provided them with the strategic resourcefulness and capacities needed to transcend political opposition and seize political opportunities in later years. By taking a look at the strategic reproduction of solidarity from 1975 to 1981, I offer insight on the processes through which activists worked to achieve the momentum and resourcefulness needed to realize important political gains in subsequent years. It is important to add that over the years, Seaska’s emergence, expansion, and quest for recognition was significantly informed and aided by the larger, longer-running, and ultimately more influential IM operating across the border in Spain. While it is beyond the aim and scope of this article to explore interactions between the northern and southern wings of the IM (e.g., Heidemann, 2010), two key points should be made. First, Seaska’s initial efforts to build an alternative bascocentric schooling network in France were explicitly modeled after the original IM in Spain, particularly with respect to the general objective of using schools to revitalize the Basque language through the implementation of an immersive model of bilingual education. Through the years, however, the highly disparate institutional context in France led Seaska to develop structures and strategies that differ considerably from the IM in Spain. Second, the IM in France has benefited considerably through the years from strategic ties crafted with parallel actors in Spain (Garat 2005; Heidemann, 2010). Such empowering ties emerged after the rise of democracy and regional autonomy in the Spanish Basque Country during the late 1970s and helped to encourage cross-border collaborations among activists throughout the 1980s–1990s. Evidence of outcomes generated by such cross-national exchanges for the northern IM include Seaska’s membership in the Ikastola Federation/Ikastolen Federatzoa (based in Euskadi), Seaska’s involvement in teacher-training programs based in Euskadi, financial donations to Seaska from the Basque government of Spain, and the persistently high levels of participation in Seaska’s annual fundraising festival Herri Urrats by southern Basques. Such interactions have yielded considerable ideological, logistical, and financial support for Seaska. While the empowering influences of the southern IM on Seaska’s efforts in France must not be overlooked, it is important to perceive the constituents of the northern IM as shaping an independent and distinctive mobilization initiative. METHODOLOGY As a way to explore how state-based structures of power influenced the solidarity of activists affiliated with the IM between 1975 and 1981, I draw from a qualitative investigation of two sets of data: (1) an analysis of semistructured interviews conducted with 14 persons who were actively involved with the IM in 1975–1981 and (2) an analysis of 31 organizational texts that had been published by Seaska at some point between 1975 and 1981. My analysis begins in September 1975 because this represents the start of a particularly formative phase of mobilization, when Seaska first entered the field of primary schooling and thus first started to engage the French state in an instrumental manner oriented toward the pursuit of ideological and institutional support. Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 IN THE NAME OF LANGUAGE 59 Consequently, my analysis ends in May 1981 because this represents the start of a new phase for the IM during which activists would alter and intensify their mobilization efforts so as to seize upon emergent opportunities. Semistructured interviewing is a method well-suited for analyzing the various dispositions, interests, identities, narratives, motivations, and expectations that bond and guide a community of actors engaged in a social movement campaign (Blee & Taylor, 2002). In this article, I draw on an investigation of 14 semistructured retrospective interviews I conducted with activists who had been systematically committed to and involved with Seaska and the IM at various points between 1975 and 1981.11 These included 8 women and 6 men whose affiliations with Seaska ranged from high-level organizers, teachers, administrators, and the parents of students. Through a snowball method of recruitment, these persons were all selected based upon their deep knowledge and involvement with Seaska. Interviews averaged around 60 minutes. I asked all participants a similar series of open-ended questions geared toward eliciting their retrospective thoughts on (a) the internal practices through which activists worked to develop, sustain, and bolster their solidarity and (b) the external political factors that either positively or negatively influenced their mobilization efforts. Such questions included but were not limited to the following: What motivated you to join/support Seaska? What sort of group activities did you participate in? What were some of the biggest challenges facing Seaska? How did you and others work to overcome these challenges? What were some of Seaska’s most/least effective strategies? What were some of the most significant successes of that time? How did Seaska interact with/relate to political authorities and agencies? How/why were these authorities/agencies helpful/not helpful? My second set of data stems from a qualitative content analysis (Neuendorf, 2002) of 31 texts published by Seaska from the time it transitioned into the field of primary education in the spring of 1975 to the eve of the French presidential elections in May 1981. These texts were selected with explicit permission from Seaska’s organizational archives and in some cases from the collections of individual activists who were willing to share materials. The texts used for this study are thus a purposive sample and not representative of all texts published by Seaska during 1975–1981. This sample comprised different genres such as promotional flyers/brochures, informational newsletters, organizational charters and mission statements, letters to political authorities, notes taken during organizational meetings, and press releases written by representatives of Seaska. Texts were coded and analyzed so as to answer questions concerning (a) the internal practices through which actors reproduced their solidarity and (b) how their solidarity was positively and negatively influenced by macro-political factors linked to the French state. Given my limited proficiency in Basque, I focused my attention on materials published in French. However, given that Seaska has long been committed to the production of bilingual texts, the bias procured by my exclusion of Basque materials was minimized. FINDINGS: FROM STRUGGLE TO SOLIDARITY My analysis of the Ikastola Movement revealed that the reproduction of solidarity among Seaska’s members between 1975 and 1981 was shaped by (a) their discursive interpretations 11 All interviews were conducted in French. To protect the identity of participants in accordance with IRB protocols, all names used in this article are pseudonyms. 60 HEIDEMANN and evaluations of state-based opposition, on the one hand, and (b) their organizational efforts to transcend these experiences of political opposition on the other. In short, one of the most important factors promoting the unity and commitment of activists between 1975 and 1981 was a group-based sense of political struggle and resistance against “the State.” In the following segments I discuss how the discursive and organizational reproduction of solidarity among activists was shaped by their efforts to understand and overcome state-level obstacles. Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 State Power and the Discursive Reproduction of Solidarity Historical persecution. Foremost among the political challenges identified by Basque activists was a perception of “historical persecution.” In this context, state-level actors, agencies, and policies were construed by activists as pursuant to a nationalist legacy of governance intent on the suppression and eradication of the Basque language. State-level authorities were typically held responsible by activists for promoting the historical decline of Basque in the past as well as for preventing its resurgence in the present. The historical marginalization and decline of Basque in France were usually explained as the direct outcome of governmental planning and policy making with the national educational system highlighted as a key site of linguistic domination. Drawing upon historical knowledge and information, Seaska’s members crafted a collective narrative that described a process through which Basque had been denigrated by French authorities as a “backward,” “useless,” and “dying” language that was “unfit” and “unworthy” of inclusion in the public education system. Activists interpreted this “criminalization” and “demonization” of Basque as an “unjust” and “injurious” exercise of state power, which had to be “resisted” and “surmounted” in the present if Basque was to “survive” into the future. The IM was generally perceived by Seaska’s members as a counter-hegemonic initiative mobilizing against the “homogenizing forces” of mainstream French political culture so as to “save,” “defend,” and “bring life to” the Basque language. Within this context the preservation and promotion of Basque was unambiguously equated with the “existential well-being” and “civil rights” of the bascophone citizenry of France. The strategic function of the Ikastolas was thus, not only to teach children to read and write in the Basque language, but to secure institutional support for the Basque language and ensure the cultivation of Basque ethnocultural identity within France. The following excerpt published by Seaska in 1976 is illustrative of this narrative: The people of the northern Basque Country are a colonized people. . . . The Jacobin mentality has placed our language ever more deeply into a precarious condition of diminishment and dormancy where it remains silent from our lives and distant from our children. . . . The ikastola is our only weapon in the cultural combat to guarantee the survival of our language, our history, our identity and ultimately our well-being for future generations. (Document #10, Ikastolak, April 1976) The discursive theme of historical persecution was influential in shaping the collective identities and interests of activists and promoted the strategic reproduction of solidarity in at least two ways. First, by identifying the French state as a primary source of injustice and wrong-doing activists were able to establish a discernible target for their claims and grievances. This brought increased ideological cohesion and coherence to Seaska’s mobilization efforts by channeling the agency of activists toward the quest for political recognition. Second, through the narrative of historical persecution activists also identified themselves as members of an aggrieved population IN THE NAME OF LANGUAGE 61 Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 who shared a collective experience of ethnolinguistic discrimination. This strengthened the affective ties of activists by promoting processes of identity formation based upon collective concerns for the future vitality and survival of the Basque language within the French Republic. Through the nurturance of such notions, participation in the IM was rendered increasingly meaningful and purposeful for activists, thus boosting their motivations and commitment to the collective cause of revitalization. Ideological misrecognition. Another important form of political struggle identified by Basque language activists was that of “ideological misrecognition.” As Seaska’s members worked to gain political support for the IM after entering the field primary education in 1975 they began to encounter an influential network of political power brokers and decision-makers who were highly critical and resistant of Seaska’s agenda. As a consequence, Seaska struggled to attain empowering forms of visibility and legitimacy within the political arena and thus lacked key forms of support from political insiders. Hence, in addition to locating the source of Seaska’s political struggles in the historical legacy of ethnolinguistic persecution, activists also identified “the State” in more immediate terms of struggle within the present. In working to make sense of this unaccommodating environment, Seaska’s members cultivated a collective conviction that the IM was misrecognized and misrepresented by political challengers as a “radical” and ”threatening” initiative in pursuit of “irrational” goals. From the standpoint of Seaska’s members, their opponents had misconstrued the IM as endorsing a “militant” form of “ethnic nationalism” that was oriented toward “seditious” political goals of “autonomy” and “independence.” The Ikastolas were erroneously denounced in this context as fostering a “divisive” form of “ethnic communitarianism” that would “destabilize” the French Republic and “corrupt” the unitary model of French nationhood. Such accusations thwarted Seaska’s mobilization efforts, according to activists, by generating a broader public climate of skepticism and uncertainty regarding the “true” objectives of the IM. Conversely, activists engaged with this criticism by vociferously rejecting the label of nationalist and arguing that Seaska was a thoroughly “apolitical” schooling association unaffiliated with any political organizations and activities, nationalist or otherwise. These concerns are illustrated in the following interview excerpts: Everyone wanted to put a political label on us; nationalist, radical, leftist or whatever. . . . We were in a constant struggle to defend ourselves against all kinds of crazy accusations and this took up a lot of our time. (Interview #12, Clarice, February 2007) Our critics never paid attention to what we were actually doing in the schools, pedagogically or linguistically. They were stuck in an out-dated model and so they called us radical. This made it difficult to engage in any rational dialogue, there was so much suspicion and mistrust. . . . I would say that a central part of our struggle at that time was to speak for ourselves and to be properly understood as an educational project. (Interview #13, Koldo, March 2007) I think one of our biggest challenges for many years was to break this negative image of radicalism that surrounded us. Anyone who spoke in defense of Basque at that time was labeled a terrorist and this made it difficult for us to move forward with anything. (Interview #6, Iker, October 2006) Such sentiments of misrecognition were widespread among the activists I interviewed and evident throughout the texts I analyzed. The ubiquity of this narrative illustrates how Seaska’s supporters Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 62 HEIDEMANN cultivated bonds of mutual identification based upon a symbolic struggle for legitimacy vis-ávis the French state. The struggle in this context, however, did not simply entail the rhetorical dilemma of being misunderstood and misrepresented but rather the effects produced by this misrecognition: a lack of discursive resonance within the political arena and a failure to negotiate with authorities. While frustrating for activists, however, the opposition and criticism voiced by political authorities often served as a reaffirmation of the state’s “Jacobin” legacy and prejudicial stance toward the bascophone citizenry. This perspective helped to reinforce rather than weaken the unity and commitment of Seaska’s members by instilling an agentive sense of righteousness and purpose to their mobilization agenda. By cultivating the narrative of ideological misrecognition the agency of activists became channeled toward the project of disseminating “accurate” and “authentic” information about the IM so as to raise public awareness and counteract the claims of Seaska’s critics as will be discussed below. Institutional obstructionism. A third political struggle identified by Seaska’s constituents was that of “institutional obstructionism.” In this context, activists perceived state-level education authorities as overstepping and abusing their powers so as to create a variety of legal and bureaucratic impediments that prevented the ”natural” and “democratic” growth of the IM within French Basque society. Some of the most repeated examples of this struggle by Seaska’s members included efforts to shut down existing Ikastolas or prevent the opening of new ones, the implementation of opaque legal regulations and bureaucratic procedures intended to stem Seaska’s expansion, and the overall sluggishness with which Seaska’s formal petitions and requests were processed by officials. The struggle of obstructionism was especially salient when Seaska was working to open some of the very first primary-level Ikastolas in the towns of Anglet, St. Jean de Luz, and St. Palais during 1975–1978. During this initial period of expansion Seaska found that a host of political elites and educational stakeholders, including the highly influential teachers union SNI (Le Syndicat National des Instituteurs), were vehemently opposed to Seaska’s entry into primary schooling. These actors perceived Seaska’s members as unqualified to operate schools, criticized Seaska’s bascocentric curriculum as parochial and irrational, and lambasted the IM as an encroachment of ethnonationalist interests upon the institution of universal public education. Hence, as Seaska followed the requisite legal and bureaucratic steps needed to open primary schools, they found that their efforts were either periodically stalled or rejected wholesale by the influential authorities whose permission they ultimately required. In one particular instance, after Seaska had succeeded in opening a primary-level Ikastola in the town of St. Palais in 1977, for example, the school was shut down by authorities for allegedly violating “safety” and “sanitation” regulations. Activists perceived these reasons as a “false pretext” that had been fabricated by authorities so as to subdue the IM. The narrative of political obstructionism in relation to this particular event is evidenced in the following excerpts: These actions [the closure of the Ikastola in St. Palais] remind us once again that our language has no status and our culture has no respect within the Hexagon [France]. At any moment we are susceptible to the brute force of an administration prepared to silence the voice of the Basque people through a farcical interpretation and subversion of its own laws. (Document #14, Enbata, September 1977) IN THE NAME OF LANGUAGE 63 Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 The incident at St. Palais demonstrated that the attitude of the central powers was to use the political system to obstruct our actions and suffocate the Ikastolas at all costs. . . . We learned that being timid and polite and following the guidelines would not be sufficient because they [authorities] could wield their influence to block us at every turn. . . . They would drown us in legalities and paperwork, make us wait for an eternity to meet with anyone and then in the end they would change the rules of the game entirely. It was like taking one step forward and two steps back. (Interview #9, Txomin, January 2007) From the perspective of activists, state-based processes of institutional obstruction were a major source of frustration that had a profoundly negative impact on the IM by slowing and preventing its growth. Nevertheless, in cultivating narratives centered on the theme of institutional obstruction the solidarity of Seaska’s members was reinforced in several ways. On the one hand, these narratives helped to bolster the instrumental and contentious stance of activists toward the French state. This is to say that as Seaska’s members experienced the phenomenon of state-level obstructionism their commitment to the goal of political recognition was amplified and their grievances against the state were further fueled. Rather than lead activists to abandon or exit the movement, a collective sense of frustration helped to nourish and sustain the commitment of Seaska’s constituents. On the other hand, the struggle of institutional obstructionism also reinforced the solidarity of activists by leading them to adopt organizational strategies meant to ensure the expansion of the IM, as will be discussed below. State Power and the Organizational Reproduction of Solidarity My analysis showed that discursive narratives of political opposition were translated into the creation of organizational structures and schemas intended to bolster Seaska’s legitimacy and access within the political arena. These organizational structures and schemas included efforts to gather and interpret useful information about the political landscape, disseminate accurate information about the IM to the public, coordinate protest events, and orchestrate fundraising activities. The strategic labor involved in the deployment of such organizational practices emerged from and reinforced the discursive solidarity of activists. Gathering information, building knowledge. When Seaska first transitioned into the field of primary schooling in 1975, a host of activists took up the work of gathering, interpreting, and redistributing information on state-level policies, procedures, regulations, or reports that were deemed relevant to Seaska. This entailed a committed collective effort on the part of activists to generate useful and strategic knowledge about the political system. This was an important strategy because Seaska’s members were largely outsiders to the political system and often unacquainted with the myriad legal and bureaucratic technicalities that had a direct bearing on their efforts to operate primary schools let alone their capacity to gain state-level funding. As noted by one former member: We certainly had to do our homework. No one really had much experience in this domain [education]. . . . We were inundated by bureaucracy and I think they [opponents/authorities] expected us to be so intimidated by it all that we would give up. But, we knew that our survival at that stage was very dependent on understanding every angle of the system and so we devoted ourselves fully to achieving a kind of political consciousness. (Interview #4, Valérie, October 2006) Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 64 HEIDEMANN A lack of knowledge or consciousness about the political system, many activists felt, was a point of weakness for Seaska that had to be overcome at all costs. As a result, during the mid 1970s Seaska developed a formal division of labor whereby specialized committees and task groups were created so as to better evaluate and navigate a labyrinthine political landscape that was seen as hostile and unaccommodating. During small weekly meetings and larger monthly assemblies a period of time would be allocated to the committees and task groups so as to explain the legal and bureaucratic parameters within which Seaska was working. Through these meetings, all participants—teachers and parents as well as organizers—would thus undertake a collective interpretation of the political landscape and contemplate what courses of action would be more or less possible given the conditions at hand. In this context an inclusive and reflexive structure of decision-making was exercised whereby Seaska’s members would vote on how things should proceed. The collaboration generated through this kind of work strengthened the solidarity of activists. On the one hand, by collecting and sharing information about the broader landscape, activists depended upon and learned from one another. Such interactions promoted dialogue and deliberation and also fostered trust and reciprocity. On the other hand, by making decisions in a collaborative manner, activists contributed to the steering of the IM and in the process they nurtured an empowering sense of shared purpose and collective destiny. Publicity campaigns. Another way in which the discursive solidarity of activists became translated into organizational schemas and structures was in the orchestration of publicity campaigns. These campaigns were intended to counteract the criticisms of political opponents as well as to raise public awareness of what the IM was all about. These efforts took up at least three paths. One path was in the publication of promotional literature, such as flyers and brochures. These texts were often short and simple in their design and largely intended to provide basic information on the objectives of IM and describe the nature of Seaska’s educational program to a broader public audience. A second path taken up was in the publication of statements and editorials in the regional press. While this form of publicity also aimed to explain Seaska’s educational objectives and programs to the general public, it was more often intended to counteract the problem of ideological misrecognition exacerbated by Seaska’s political opponents. In this context, Seaska would often republish the criticisms of political opponents alongside statements explaining how and why allegations against the IM were misguided and unfounded. A third path of publicity taken up by Seaska was the orchestration of open-house events whereby members of the public could visit a local Ikastola, talk with teachers, and learn more about its pedagogical objectives and methods. Cumulatively, these publicity campaigns worked to disseminate information about the IM which activists deemed to be accurate and authentic. A sustained commitment to generating publicity over the course of the 1970s also helped Seaska to defend itself against political criticism and opposition by allowing activists to tell their own story and control the public image of the IM. By organizing and engaging in these publicity campaigns, the solidarity of activists was both strengthened and expanded. On the one hand, their solidarity was strengthened in that a considerable amount of strategic collaboration was needed to agree on the specific messages that would be conveyed to the public about the Ikastolas. On the other hand, as people learned more about the IM, Seaska’s membership would grow larger and the network of committed activists would expand. Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 IN THE NAME OF LANGUAGE 65 Protest events. The organizational solidarity of activists was also reinforced through the orchestration of numerous protests and rallies. The first official protest took place in response to the closing down of the Ikastola in St. Palais by the MNE in October 1977. It consisted of a silent march through the streets of Bayonne with participants carrying bilingual banners and placards stating slogans such as “End the Criminalization of Basque” and “Ikastola = the People’s School.” Conservative estimates placed the number of persons in attendance to be around 3,500 (Garat, 2005, p. 112). This event would be a catalyst that launched a cycle of protests that would continue into the 1980s and 1990s. While the earliest and most common form of protest adopted by Seaska would be street marches and rallies, other strategies introduced during the 1980s included hunger strikes, road and railway blockades, and the occupation of government buildings. Between 1975 and 1981 Seaska organized at least two dozen protest events. These protests were generally organized as a response to the problem of institutional obstructionism. This is to say that whenever Seaska believed state-level officials to be severely overstepping their authority so as to repress and contain the growth of the IM, activists would orchestrate a protest event. These protests were intended to expose the perceived radicalism of the French state as well as to demonstrate the presence and perseverance of Seaska’s supporters to state-level authorities. By organizing and participating in these protests, activists were enacting their unity and exhibiting their commitment, thus, bolstering their solidarity through a mutual identification as loyal and dedicated constituents of the IM. Festivals and fundraisers. Another way in which the organizational solidarity of activists was strengthened was through the orchestration of public events aimed at raising funds for the Ikastolas, such as music festivals and sporting matches. As Seaska began opening and operating primary-level schools the ability to properly fund these programs became problematic. From the get-go Seaska had refused to rely solely upon a tuition-driven system so as to maintain a highly inclusive model of membership that welcomed any students regardless of their socioeconomic background. A sliding tuition scale was implemented, whereby families would pay only what they could afford. As this was insufficient in raising the funds needed to run the Ikastolas, however, other means were adopted to generate resources. On the one hand, Seaska’s members were expected to volunteer a considerable amount of time in helping to run the Ikastolas, such as by contributing to food preparation, student transportation, and building maintenance. On the other hand, funds were also often acquired by seeking out donations from a wide variety of individuals and organizations, albeit not from political parties. Perhaps most significant in this context, however, was that Seaska came to rely quite heavily upon the systematic orchestration of fundraising events to benefit the Ikastolas. This typically involved working with other organizational actors to arrange festive events celebrating Basque language and culture. These events were characterized by a wide variety of activities blending traditional and modern forms of Basque art, music, dance, sports, and gastronomy. While some of these events would take place in small taverns or cafes with only a few dozen people, others would take place in larger public venues with hundreds of participants. By the latter part of the 1970s, such events would become a regular feature of Seaska’s activities, with a variety of events taking place on an almost weekly basis. A reliance on such organizational strategies would eventually lead Seaska’s members to create Herri Urrats in 1984, the largest and longest running annual festival dedicated explicitly to raising funds for the Ikastolas in France to this day (see, http://www.herriurrats. com). 66 HEIDEMANN The organization of these fundraisers helped to reinforce the unity and commitment of activists in several ways. On the one hand, the logistics involved in periodically putting these events together and seeing them through required considerable levels of consensus and collaboration on the part of Seaska’s members. On the other hand, by participating in these events, activists often experienced what sociologists call “collective effervescence,” that is, empowering sentiments of mutual belonging with and affinity for proximate others that emerge by partaking in rituals that celebrate group identity (Bayertz, 1999). Such sentiments promoted the solidarity of activists by rendering their participation meaningful and rewarding as well as fun and enjoyable. Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 DISCUSSION The discursive and organizational reproduction of solidarity among Seaska’s members from 1975 to 1981 played an important role in their capacity to generate increased levels of state-based support during the 1980s and 1990s. After the election of President François Mitterrand and the ascension of the Socialist Party in the spring of 1981, a series of governmental reforms were implemented that would change the structure of political opportunity for the IM. Most notable was a deconcentration of state power to the subnational and regional levels of governance, on the one hand, and an increased willingness to support minority languages in the educational system, on the other (Safran, 1999). In addition, over the course of the 1980s, Seaska would increasingly develop ties with the southern IM in Spain; a relationship that would foster the diffusion of empowering symbolic and material exchanges. Moreover, by the mid 1990s, France’s incorporation into transnational processes of Europeanization would further help to normalize the minority language question in the education system (Judge, 2007). Hence, although Basque language activists would still face political opposition throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the rise of macro-level opportunities would help to lessen the severity of this opposition and create new possibilities for Seaska to gain increased legitimacy and access within the political arena. Seaska’s ability to transform opportunities into outcomes, however, ultimately rested upon the solidarity of activists and their capacity to draw French authorities into a collaborative and supportive relationship with the IM. The discursive and organizational solidarities mobilized by Seaska’s members from 1975 to 1981 thus provided them with the resourcefulness and momentum needed to navigate the obstacles and opportunities paving the path to political recognition. As noted in retrospect by one activist: “We could not wait on the promises of politicians, or we would have waited an eternity. We had to make things happen” (Interview #2, Jean Claude, September 2006). Over the course of the early 1980s, Seaska launched into a heightened phase of mobilization and claims making inspired by a perception of increased opportunity and motivated by the quest for political recognition. Through a unified and sustained commitment to mobilization, Seaska would thus gradually accrue empowering forms of ideological and material support from political authorities, the pinnacle of which was the acquisition of a contract of association with the Ministry of National Education in 1994 (Garat, 2005). Although it is beyond the aim and scope of this discussion to explore the IM beyond 1981, my aim has been to show how the discursive and organizational practices adopted by activists during an early and difficult period of collective action helped to shape the logic and structure of their actions going forward. While the IM evolved significantly through the years, many of the claims and tactics relied upon by activists today trace their origins to the highly formative phase of mobilization discussed earlier. IN THE NAME OF LANGUAGE 67 Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 CONCLUSION In this article I have shown how Seaska’s efforts to gain state-level support “from above” hinged upon the capacity of grassroots actors to develop empowering forms of discursive and organizational solidarity “from below.” More specifically, the horizontal reproduction of solidarity among Basque activists from 1975 to 1981 was shown to have emerged from the struggles associated with their vertical quest for political recognition. Subsequently, I argued that as the French political landscape became relatively more open and accommodating for minority language activists after 1981, the discursive and organizational solidarity cultivated by activists endowed them with the strategic capacity needed to realize empowering political gains in later years. Seaska’s accrual of state-level support over time ultimately then helped to promote the expansion of the IM that in turn contributed to the revitalization of Basque within France. The insights raised by my exploration of the IM offer a general blueprint for future research on school-based revitalization initiatives beyond the French Basque Country. Drawing upon the insights of social movement theory (e.g., Melucci 1996; Snow et al., 2004), I argue that the struggles, strategies, and success of school-based efforts to revitalize minority languages can be better theorized by taking a micro-sociological look at the vertical and horizontal dynamics of collective action. On the one hand, scholars can explore how sustained levels of horizontal solidarity are developed and deployed by actors situated on the frontlines of a school-centered revitalization initiative. Such solidarity-building processes can be seen as taking shape through a blend of discursive practices geared toward the definition of shared interests and identities as well as by organizational practices geared toward the development of tactical schemas and structures. On the other hand, scholars can look at how proponents of school-based revitalization work to generate empowering levels of vertical recognition from the political authorities and power brokers that typically exert authority over educational systems. The pursuit and accrual of vertical recognition can be understood as emerging from the efforts of activists to cope with enduring structures of political opposition as well as by their efforts to engage with structures of political opportunity. By looking at the interplay of these horizontal and vertical dynamics, scholars will be better positioned to develop theories regarding the factors that variously fuel and frustrate minority language advocacy in education. While it is important to understand how specific kinds of educational policies, programs, and practices can promote the vitality of minority languages, it is equally vital to examine the specific sets of practices through which community members work to transform educational systems into vehicles of ethnolinguistic revitalization. REFERENCES Ager, D. (1999). France and language: Identity, image and insecurity. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters. Auduc, J. C. (2002). Le systéme educatif. Paris, France: Hachette. Azurmendi, M. J., Bachoc, E., & Zabaleta, F. (2001). Reversing language shift: The case of Basque. In J. Fishman (Ed.), Can threatened languages be saved? (pp. 234–259). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingualism and bilingual education (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters. Basurko Motrico, F. (1989). La normalización de la ikastola: Breve historia y estado de la cuestión de la escuela pública vasca. Historia de la educación: Revista interuniversitaria, 8, 139–166. Bayertz, K. (Ed.). (1999). Solidarity. Hingman, MA: Kluwer Academic. Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 68 HEIDEMANN Blee, K., &Taylor, V. (2002). Semi-structured interviewing in social movement research. In S. Staggenborg & B. Klandermans (Eds.), Methods in social movement research (pp. 92–117). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Churchill, S. (1996). The education of linguistic and cultural minorities in the OECD countries. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Cohen, P. (2000). Of linguistic Jacobinism and cultural balkanization. French Politics, Culture and Society, 18(2), 21–48. Coyos, J. B. (2005). Politique linguistique: Langue basque et langue cccitane en Béarn et Gascogne. Bayonne, France: ELKAR. Crossley, N. (2002). Making sense of social movements. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2005). Social movements: An introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Diani, M. (1997). Social movements and social capital: A networks approach to movement outcomes. Mobilization, 2(2), 129–147. Earl, J. (2003). Repression and the social control of protest. Mobilization, 11(2), 129–143. Edwards, J. (1985). Language, society, and identity. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Fishman, J. (1980). Minority language maintenance and the ethnic mother tongue school. The Modern Language Journal, 64(2), 167–172. Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing language shift. Bristol, PA: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, J. (Ed.). (2001). Can threatened languages be saved? Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. Freeland, J., & Patrick, D. (2004). Language rights and language survival: Sociolinguistic and sociocultural perspectives. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome. Gamson, W. (1975). The strategy of social protest. New York, NY: Wadsworth. Garat, M. (2005). Seaska. In J. Borthayou, P. Etcheverry-Ainchart, M. Garat, C. Leralu, & I. Lichau (Eds.), Le mouvement culturel Basque 1951–2000 (pp. 87–243). Bayonne, France: ELKAR. Grenoble, L., & Whaley, L. (2006). Saving languages: An introduction to language revitalization. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hinton, L. (2003). Language revitalization. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 44–57. Heidemann, K. (2010). Giving voice to language: Basque language activism and the politics of education reform in France, 1969–1994 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Heidemann, K. (2012). The view room below: Exploring the interface of Europeanization and Basque language activism in France. Mobilization, 17(2), 195–220. Hornberger, N. (1998). Language policy, language education and language rights: Indigenous, immigrant and international perspectives. Language in Society, 27, 439–458. Hornberger, N. (2009). Voice and biliteracy in indigenous language revitalization: Contentious educational practices in Quechua, Guarani and Maori Contexts. Journal of Language, Identity and Education, 8, 277–292. Hunt, S., & Benford, R. (2004). Collective identity, solidarity and commitment. In D. Snow, S. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.) The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 433–458). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Judge, A. (2007). Linguistic policies and the survival of regional languages in France and Britain. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Kriesi, H. (2004). Political context and opportunity. In D. Snow, S. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Laborde, C. (2001). The cultures of the republic: Nationalism and multiculturalism in French republican thought. Political Theory, 29(5), 716–735. Lopez-Goñi, I. (2003). The Ikastola in the 21st century: An alternative to schooling in the Basque country. History of Education, 32(6), 661–676. May, S. (2012). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language. New York, NY: Routledge. Melucci, A. (1996). Challenging codes: Collective action in the information age. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Meyer, D. (1999). Tending the vineyard: Cultivating political process research. Sociological Forum, 14(1), 79–93. Neuendorf, K. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Opp, K. D., & Ruehl, W. (1990). Repression, micromobilization, and political protest. Social Forces, 6(92), 521–547. Oyharçabal, B. (1999). La situation démolinguistique de la langue Basque. Les Langues Regionales de France: Un état des lieux a la veille du XXI siecle. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters. IN THE NAME OF LANGUAGE 69 Downloaded by [82.136.252.123] at 11:36 10 February 2014 Paulston, C. B. (1994). Linguistic minorities in multilingual settings. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Paulston, C. B., & Heidemann, K. (2006). Language policies and the education of linguistic minorities. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Safran, W. (1999). Politics and language in contemporary France. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 137, 39–66. Snow, D., Soule, S., & Kriesi, H. (2004). The Blackwell companion to social movements. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Tollefson, J. (2002). Language policies in education: Critical issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wright, S. (2000). Jacobins, regionalists and the council of Europe’s charter for regional or minority languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21(5), 414–424.