Needs of the field.

We have already pointed to some of the shortcomings of extant studies--the lack of integrative analysis, the focus on disciplinary rather than cross-disciplinary work, the lack of broad-based studies that are cross-cultural rather than polity or culture-specific, the claims for theories that are not borne out by actual cases. A long-standing debate in the past has focussed on whether language is a `primordial' category or whether it is subject to manipulation by other social forces, especially economic ones. It may be the case that the primordial vs. constructivist dichotomy is unhelpfully simplistic; we should like to see studies re-examining both terms of this age-old opposition-possibly leading to some reconciling middle way. On this point, we note that Joshua Fishman, in an article devoted to delineating two different `world views' concerning ethnolinguistic diversity describes Johann Gottfried Herder's contribution as a compromise:

...the whole world needs a diversity of ethnolinguistic entities for its own salvation, for its greater creativity, for the more certain solution of human problems, for the constant rehumanization of humanity in the face of materialism, for fostering greater esthetic, intellectual, and emotional capacities for humanity as a whole, indeed, for arriving at a higher stage of human functioning (Fishman 1982:6).

The needs of the field, and our goals for it, are to focus on the Herderian views as Fishman has delineated them--the world not only needs ethnolinguistic diversity, but we need to study why people might think this to be so. Instead of asking why ethnolinguistic minorities do not give up their languages when offered economic incentives, we should ask why devotion to their languages is viewed as more rewarding than economic advancement, or even in some sense as salvific.