The Vitality of the Communities
Page 11 of 36
| "Perfect vitality is like an illusive dream. I say this because we believe vitality to be an optimum state of existence of an official language minority community. That is never reachable. It is an ongoing process. Research will lead to a greater understanding of vitality." – Aline Visser, Address at the Discussion Forum on the Vitality of Official Language Minority Communities, Ottawa, September 2005 |
The Concept of Vitality
The concept of vitality, like that of community, covers a range of meanings in the minds of OLMC stakeholders. The very idea of the vitality of OLMCs stems from the rights enshrined in the Official Languages Act and in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with regard to the equality of English and French in Canada. Part VII of the 1988 Act sets out the federal government's commitment to "enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development;" although the French version does not contain the word "vitalité," it uses the expression "favoriser l'épanouissement" (promote the advancement).
The concept of vitality was introduced in research in the late 1970s to encompass simultaneously the linguistic and psychological processes that underlie interethnic behaviours (Harwood et al., 1994: 171). Significant works of international research on vitality use the vocabulary of ethnicity, in other words, they combine the linguistic and cultural dimensions. These works are characterized by their emphasis on individual attitudes and perceptions, rather than on collective phenomena.
It is not always clear whether the vitality being discussed has to do with the individuals who speak the minority language or with their collective existence. In individual terms, language is a reality that covers at least three dimensions: 1) it is a skill or knowledge, 2) which can be used, i.e. translated into practice, and 3) it is a representation of shared values, symbols and experiences with which individuals can identify (Liebkind, 1999). However, as Landry suggests, there is no individual vitality as such, but rather a subjective vitality, or a perception of the individual regarding the vitality of his or her group. In Canada, numerous studies have explored the subjective dimensions of language knowledge, practice, perceptions and identities among young people in school (Bernard, 1991, 1992; Locher, 1994; Heller, 1999; Landry and Allard, 1999) or, more rarely, in other locations where youth gather (David Bourgeois, 2004; Bourgeois and Leblanc, 2002). When viewed in collective terms, vitality is a characteristic that encompasses the entire life of the community and can be envisaged as either a state or a process of development.
Community vitality can be understood as a state; that is, a set of situations that can be analysed at a given moment in time. Analysis then examines the capital or resources acquired and accessible in demographic and demolinguistic, political, legal, economic, cultural and environmental terms.
Seen from another perspective, community vitality is also a process of development made up of actions occurring over time that contribute to its variable strength. The idea of development makes the concept of vitality irrevocably more complex. As a review of the research into community development suggests, this dimension is both horizontally complex, because of the wide span of areas it involves, and vertically complex, because of the depth of the changes it brings about in the individual, family, community, social systems and organizations (Auspos and Kubisch, 2004). However, even if it is a process, development cannot be envisaged as a sequence of stages to be passed through. Researchers long ago rejected Rostow's (1960) model of stages of growth, and stakeholders do not wish to be subjected to preconceived models of progress that ignore the particularities of their communities. Consideration needs to be given to the asymmetric nature of conditions and the quest for equality.
Vitality can be understood as a state; that is, a set of situations that can be analysed at a given moment in time [...] Vitality is also a process of development made up of actions occurring over time that contribute to its variable strength.
To evaluate vitality as a process, the focus is on such factors as governance, organizational capacity, leadership, strategic vision, the commitment of members of the community and the mobilization of the resources or capital needed for their development. It is this aspect of vitality that guides many of the movements devoted to community development, such as resilient communities, which are defined as follows: "A resilient community is one that takes intentional action to enhance the personal and collective capacity of its citizens and institutions to respond to and influence the course of social and economic change" (Centre for Community Enterprise, 2000: 11).
Ethnolinguistic, Linguistic or Community Vitality
The collective dimension of the vitality of OLMCs is defined by a variety of concepts used in research, the best known of which is ethnolinguistic vitality (Giles, Bourhis and Taylor, 1977). The pioneering contribution of Giles et al. (1977) introduces the social dimension into the field of linguistic research by creating a concept associated with that of the group or community (ethno-), the expression "ethnolinguistic vitality" linking the linguistic and cultural dimensions, as mentioned above. According to Giles et al. (1977: 308), the vitality of an ethnolinguistic group is "that which makes a group likely to behave as a distinctive and active collective entity in intergroup situations."
Landry and Allard (1999: 403) draw on this approach in defining ethnolinguistic vitality as "[...] the structural and sociological factors that influence the survival and development of a linguistic minority. Strong ethnolinguistic vitality ensures that the ethnolinguistic and cultural community will remain a distinct, active entity, whereas weak ethnolinguistic vitality is associated with linguistic and cultural assimilation." This view is continued in Landry's recent work: "Objective ethnolinguistic vitality, i.e. what can be observed using certain empirical indices, is defined as being made up of specific structural variables. The latter determine the degree to which an ethnolinguistic group remains a distinct, active entity in its contacts with other groups. These variables can be grouped into three categories: demographic, institutional support and status" (Landry and Rousselle, 2003: 38).
McConnell and Gendron (1988) develop the concept of linguistic vitality in their international research. It refers to the use of language in four dimensions: spatial, temporal, social and linguistic (written and oral modes). The social use of language is observed in the field in eight areas: religion, schools, media, government, the courts, the legislature, industry, and sales and services companies. However, the model has not been applied to Canadian OLMCs, probably because, as one commentator notes, its theoretical bases are not made explicit and the significance of the observations is not given a full interpretation. As a result, the impact of language use on the vitality of a language community is not clearly demonstrated (Bourhis, 1994).
Anne Gilbert et al. (2005) use the concept of community vitality, which, without being defined precisely, flows from the relationships among three dimensions: the individual, the community and the environment. This concept follows on from previous work by Gilbert and Langlois (n. d.), which uses the concept of overall vitality.
The literature of the past 25 years provides a multitude of vitality factors that can be combined in several dimensions: demographic, social, political and legal, cultural, economic and others. These dimensions are often regarded as capital; that is, resources available to OLMCs, whereas they are in reality more dynamic, as they are interrelated in many ways in the context of development processes.
