Examines neo-Marxist and poststructural critiques of classical language planning (lp) for relevance to lp on behalf of minority languages. Criticisms suggest lp is conducted by elites governed by self-interest, reproduces rather than overcomes sociocultural and econotechnical inequalities, inhibits multiculturalism, espouses worldwide Westernization and modernization, and suggests that only ethnography can save lp research from fostering the above-mentioned ills. (Four references) (Author/CK)