Yásnaya E. Aguilar Gil: "Why does Spain care about the language that comes out of our mouths?"

BarcelonaYásnaya Elena Aguilar Gil is a leading linguist and activist in defense of linguistic rights, especially for minority communities like her own, the Mixe (Oaxaca, Mexico). Raig Verd has just published her first translation into Catalan, One of us without a state, and this quarter she will be a resident at the CCCB, where she will develop a program that addresses issues such as multilingualism, mestizaje, the climate emergency, colonization, and diversity.

Do you think the cases of Mixe and Catalan are comparable?

— The similarity is that they are two languages that have suffered an open ban. And they remain threatened, but they have different dynamics.

The origin of the problem, in both cases, lies in the state.

— In monolingual nation-states that openly oppose the existence of more languages within arbitrarily determined borders. The difference, roughly speakingThe problem is that the Mixe people don't aspire to become a state. If nation-states are the problem, why should we create another one? The problem is that it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of nation-states.

Why, if we talk about language, should we talk about political organization?

— For the Spanish Empire, unlike other structures like the Roman Empire, the imposition of the Catholic religion was fundamental. For the nation-state, the imposition of the language is just as important. It's relevant for its hegemony and the construction of a single identity. In Catalonia, you know this. Why does Spain care what comes out of our mouths? Because it attacks the heart of state construction, which is homogeneous identity and nationalism, which is the state religion. Nationalism turns ideology into feelings, so when you question it, people feel attacked. No one is born loving Mexico or Spain, but when I see the Mexican flag raised and the anthem sung at the Olympics, I can't help but be moved. On the other hand, my grandparents, who weren't educated and weren't instilled with these feelings, don't feel that way.

One of the key aspects of his essays is that he attempts to break ideas so established by states, often with violence, that they seem natural.

— Because they colonize even your imagination. In the film resident Evil They imagine a dystopian world without a state, where large corporations perform state functions and have armies. I find it alarming not to be able to imagine anything else. Although it's a structure that has two or three hundred years of history, very little, it has become so internalized that the only option we consider is another state. Perhaps for us [indigenous communities] it's easier not to do it because we live in sociopolitical structures that are distinct from those of the state.

You are working on a mixed school project in your community.

— It's a collective process that dates back forty years, when there was no concern about linguistic displacement, because 95% of the population spoke Mixe. This is changing rapidly, and what we want to do are immersion schools, because Spanish will be acquired anyway. We're looking at what they're doing in the case of Catalan, Hawaiian, Basque, or Maori in New Zealand, and similar cases in Latin America. The sociopolitical conditions of our communities are very different from those in Catalonia.

If we talk about naturalizing situations, there are those here who accept as normal that Catalan speakers have fewer linguistic rights, for example, when they go to court. Or that only Catalan students should be required to be bilingual, and not those across the country.

— Why are children in Madrid condemned to be monolingual? Having it right next door and all the cognitive advantages it brings in a world that values multilingualism. I shouldn't uninstall my Mixe to learn English; I shouldn't choose; it's wonderful; it should be taken advantage of. Any policy aimed at monolingualism is flawed. I always say: the indigenous population is predominantly bilingual, and the Spanish-speaking population is sadly monolingual; please do something, for God's sake!

In diverse societies like ours, where do many people from outside come from? Where do we place the minimum standards for integration and coexistence? In language? Should there be an organization of languages?

— I have a problem with integration because the power relationship is quickly apparent. In an ideal world, integration would be two-way. This doesn't happen. We learn languages through immersion in the contexts where we naturally find ourselves. Not all languages will be present in all spaces. But, for example, in school, it would be important for Arabic to find a place where the existence of this diversity is appreciated from a celebratory, rather than integrationist, perspective. I don't think anyone who is in favor of Catalan can be against it, because that would be a contradiction. Furthermore, the introduction of other languages weakens the hegemonic language.

Unless they come to reinforce the hegemonic language, Spanish.

— The key is how we do it so that learning Catalan isn't forced but enjoyed. Who wants to learn Mixe because they're forced to? If not, we're replicating the same mechanisms by which Spanish was imposed on us.

Is it a contradiction for you to be a minority nation and want a state, as is the case in Catalonia?

— I think it's about rebelling against the content, but strengthening the mechanism. For example, you tear down colonialist statues, which are terrible because they're a way of marking territory, like a wound, a constant reminder. I see the Columbus monument and I want to tear it down. But if you take down the statue and replace it with another figure, the mechanism is the same.

If independence already seems difficult, creating a new system based on self-managed, communal cells seems even more utopian.

— In reality, it's not so much if we think that everything that seems macro to us is a series of micro experiences. No one lives and experiences the entirety of Mexico City or Barcelona. You have a neighborhood, relationships, and geographic spaces that you visit, so these micro relationships already exist. And there are things that we already self-manage without realizing it. When you throw a party, you don't call on the state. The communal party is a bastion of resistance, because it's the networks of self-management that truly sustain life. And when everyday life is shattered and the extraordinary arrives in the form of a climate emergency, in the form of a climate change, there is no market or state that can save you. Who will save you? The networks that are already woven. And as this will happen more rapidly, we will realize that neither the state nor the market are sufficient to protect life. Staying organized is in itself political.

What does he propose?

— My answer isn't just one; there are many alternatives to the nation state. Catalonia must have its own, distinct models of self-management in its tradition; a clan structure isn't the same as a communal one. I get angry when, when criticizing the state, we're lumped together with Javier Milei, that is, with anarcho-capitalists and libertarians.

They too advocate a "stateless us." The far right has appropriated the idea.

— In reality, it's false. What they're doing is dismantling the economic sphere of the state, but strengthening repression. They talk about creating a lean state, but their repressive apparatus is large and heavy, and exercises absolute control, while being lean in the public functions of providing education, healthcare, etc. I get really angry when they confuse us with anarcho-capitalists because they truly love the state, but a different kind of state, and generally with a Christian foundation: we see Milei, Trump, Vox. Whether they're more or less committed to social rights, at the end of the day, all states defend private property; all states are patriarchal, racist, and capitalist. Capitalism needs the nation-state to have a democratic foundation and make it more bearable. It can't be anti-statist without being anti-capitalist.

Can't a state be created that respects linguistic diversity and isn't patriarchal or racist?

— I don't think so. The architecture of the state is designed to concentrate power. I believe the world must be disempowered. The logic of the state is the logic of power, and the logic of other sociopolitical systems, like the communal system, is the logic of common care. And this is achieved with small, concrete structures.

Has globalized capitalism surpassed and replaced the nation state?

— I don't think so. Capitalism has its administrative entity in its nation-state. Globalization hasn't helped you get to know the Mixe people better, but rather has helped Coca-Cola reach all the peoples of the Sierra Madre and the world. Globalization is the imposition of a hegemonic model; it doesn't water down the nation-state; it's necessary. Capitalism needs super-vulnerable labor, and that's why it needs the nation-state and its nationalist idea of denying migrants the rights. If the United States can't do without migrants, what's the point of Trump's raids, speeches, and decrees? To keep them in such a vulnerable situation and so fearful that capitalist exploitation will only grow stronger.