Neo‐Marxist and post‐structural critiques of classical language planning (lp) are examined for their relevance to lp on behalf of minority languages. The criticisms are: (1) lp is conducted by elites that are governed by their own self‐interest; (2) lp reproduces rather than overcomes sociocultural and econotechnical inequalities; (3) lp planning inhibits or counteracts multiculturalism; (4) lp espouses worldwide Westernisation and modernisation leading to a new sociocultural, econotechnical and conceptual colonialism; (5) only ethnography can save lp research from fostering the above‐mentioned evils.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joshua A. Fishman (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: