There is one demographic group that Tanquist's survey does not capture: the blind. Since printing a book in Braille was, on average, fourteen times more expensive than in regular type, only rarely would Braille publishers cover costs, which reduced the availability of reading material for the blind. One solution was to reduce the printing costs by making books smaller by means of a stenographic system. But this solution was far from perfect: blind chil- dren would have to learn the stenography rather than the orthography of their language, and people who had become blind late in their life would have to learn a new writing system. Another solution was to increase the potential number of readers by publishing the book in an international language such as Esperanto. The deaf-blind Swede Harald Thilander endorsed this solution. With the financial support of the Frenchman Emile Javal, an ophthalmolo- gist, who, by a sad irony, went blind after contracting glaucoma, the French Theophile Cart (1855-1931) and Thilander adapted the Esperanto alphabet to Braille. In 1904, Cart launched the monthly Esperanta Ligilo, an Esperanto journal printed in Braille. The journal was a success. Local clubs and national organizations of blind Esperantists emerged, and in 1923 the Universala Aso- cio de Blindaj Esperantistoj (Universal Association of Blind Esperantists) was created.6
Table 3 shows two waves of recruitment: before and after World War I. Particularly important was the second category. Thus, in 1912 there were
Table 3. When, How, and Why American, British, and German-Austrian Esperantists Learned the Language, and How the Language Was Diffused (percent)
American
British
German- Austrian
Total
When they learned Esperanto
Before 1910
27
21
20
23
1910-1919
18
20
16
18
1920-1926
55
59
64
59
How they learned Esperanto
Private class
33
28
42
33
Self-study
44
28
44
37
Esperanto group
7
24
5
14
Night school
0
11
0
5
School (incl. university)
12
5
5
8
Radio lectures
3
0
4
2
Unclassified
1
4
1
2
DlFFUSION MECHANISMS
Social Networks
Friend
28
36
22
31
Relative
5
11
12
9
Fellow worker
5
7
1
5
Total
38
54
35
45
More Formal Mechanisms
Teacher
8
2
2
4
Newspaper articles
32
19
32
26
Esperanto propaganda literature
10
15
13
13
Esperanto propaganda meeting
4
8
7
7
Radio talk
3
1
4
2
Other
4
2
6
4
Total
61
47
64
56
Why they learned Esperanto
Peace
24
31
30
28
Political propaganda
3
6
2
4
Religious propaganda
7
2
0
2
Interest in languages
25
24
30
26
Travel, correspondence, collecting
30
29
22
28
Novelty
6
5
3
5
Other
5
3
13
6
Source: Tanquist, "A Study."
Note: The sum of percentages is sometimes higher than 100 because some informants chose more than one answer.
273 Esperanto clubs in Germany, but by 1928 there were 441. Similarly, be- tween 1923 and 1931, the French Society for the Propagation of Esperanto almost doubled its membership, as did the Swedish association, while the British increased by 30 percent. The Netherlands witnessed the highest increase, from 300 to 1,300 members. Similarly, the Universala Esperanto Asocio, the most important umbrella organization of the Esperanto move- ment, saw an increase from 6,300 to almost 9,000 in the same period. These figures do not reflect the real growth of the movement, since they do not include SAT, the international working-class Esperanto organization that by 1927 had more than 5,000 members.7
Regarding learning the language, one-third of the Esperantists said they had learned it by self-study, which is congruent with their higher educational level. Also congruent with the social networks mechanisms that diffused the movement (see below) is that another third learned Esperanto through pri- vate classes.
Tanquist did not include in his dissertation a cross-table indicating the diffusion mechanisms through which the respondents learned the language. Such a table would have let us examine the relative weight of formal and in- formal mechanisms in the prewar and the postwar periods. It is important to note, however, that 45 percent of the Esperantists active in 1927 reported that they had learned the language because of people in their own social net- works, such as friends, relatives, and co-workers. In fact, when taken sepa- rately, friendship with an Esperantist or with somebody interested in the language is the most influential factor (31 percent) to becoming an Esperan- tist, followed by a newspaper article. Thus, slightly more important for the expansion of the movement than being "out there" (i.e., mentioned in a news- paper or in a talk on radio) was that Esperanto was "in here"—within preex- isting social networks. Interpersonal networks are more critical in the early phase of social movements, since a nascent social movement that lacks an or- ganizational infrastructure is more dependent on interpersonal ties. Hence, it is somewhat surprising that even in the late 1920s interpersonal ties were so important for recruitment.
Table 3 also shows that one-third of respondents associated Esperanto with the pursuit of peace or other political or religious purposes. The data indicate that, for some other Esperantists, the language had less idealistic and more instrumental purposes. It was clearly a hobby for some who were interested in languages or in traveling and collecting. These Esperan- tists, however, were neither the most active nor the core of the movement, as a simple overview of the general and specialized Esperanto press indicates.
* * *
It is sometimes possible to conceive of a social movement as a unitary entity whose members share a common goal or a set of beliefs. When a social move- ment fits this model, a researcher might apply a linear or natural perspective to explore it. This perspective entails visualizing the movement as if it were a living entity and studying its original goals, internal organization, and strat- egy, emergence, growth, and decay. Other social movements, however, hardly fit this self-contained image. Rather, they are a collection of social networks, individuals, and organizations, which, even when they share a common goal, interpret it in different and sometimes opposite ways. In these cases, research- ing a social movement as a sort of organic entity can only impede a proper understanding of the movement.8
As we see in the next chapters, the Esperanto movement is closer to the collection of social networks than to the unitary actor model; what the move- ment lacked in a centralized organization it gained in diversity. Certainly, all active Esperantists were working for the dissemination of the language, but for quite different, and sometimes divergent, reasons. The eclecticism of the Esperanto movement mirrors the challenges and uncertainties spawned by the rapid disruption of the old order, manifested by the emergence of new nation-states and national movements, the questioning of democratic prin- ciples by a new brand of authoritarian ideologies, the political organization of the working class, a strong secularizing thrust that questioned the author- ity of old churches, as well as by the economic and social transformations brought about by the second industrial revolution.