A language of state becomes a double-edged loyalty when it gains national valence

Evidence

After the middle of the nineteenth century, however, German increasingly acquired a double status: ā€˜universal-imperial’ and ā€˜particular–national’. The more the dynasty pressed German in its first capacity, the more it appeared to be siding with its German-speaking subjects, and the more it aroused antipathy among the rest. Yet if it did not so press, indeed made concessions to other languages, above all Hungarian, not only was unification set back, but its German-speaking subjects allowed themselves to feel affronted. Thus it threatened to be hated simultaneously as champion of the Germans and traitor to them. (In much the same way, the Ottomans came to be hated by Turkish-speakers as apostates and by non-Turkish-speakers as Turkifiers.) — Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities, 345

Categorization

  • XREF: Directly scaffolds later readings: the double-bind of imperial language policy echoes in postcolonial states’ official-language conflicts. — connects to: Nationality persists as attachment even after citizenship and state loyalty are severed; National consciousness forms through language and literature, not only through shared ancestry; Colonial administrative language can become the lingua franca of anticolonial nationalism — Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on…, 667 (+3 more)

Broader Connections