Home
Previous letters
Subscribe
Useful links
About me
Contact me
|
WORLD CITIZEN LETTER: 233
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
WCL 233 April 2001
The greatest democratic deficit
Recently after the death of a friend's daughter I attended the funeral
which was held in the Quaker manner, in silence broken only by the words of those present who felt the impulse to speak to everyone. It was a reminder that although all people may be equal in the sight of God, not everyone is equal in the hearing of men, for it was possible to hear what was said by only half of those who spoke to the gathering. Others were not mute but could be heard only by those near about.
There it mattered little, for we were all united in our remembrance of a girl who everyone knew and loved, but when someone is speaking, it is usually with intent to be heard. Yet all but one or two spoke in English, a reminder that the other reason that not all are equal is the need to understand the language of discourse. English is still only the language of a minority of the world's citizens; and English for fluent discourse is only available to an even smaller number, most of whom, if not anglophones by upbringing, have usually required a minimum of six years of higher education to bring them into that fluency.
It is hard to get through to the blithely insouciant national masters of the 21st century just how far we shall be from democracy with a world where the ruling groups in every country happily carry on their negotiations and discussions in English, with translation for most important documents but only the subsidiary explanations and by-ways explained in local languages. English may reign supreme in the board-rooms, but the consumers will still be divided and discrepant, left to their own agendas and their own thoughts. This arrogance of the linguistic imperaialists is not going to remain unchallenged for all time.
Anyone who imagines that the 950 million Chinese who have no English beyond “burger” and “Coca-Cola” will jump to and learn the language will be in for quite a shock. Already the Americans, the unwitting imperialists of the 21st century, are coming to realise that their Spanish-speaking neighbours question the primacy of English but this is only the beginning of the learning process.
It would be a grave mistake to believe that only Americans are guilty of linguistic imperialism. Virtually all the world's “movers and shakers”, those who direct our destinies, but also those who would like to do so and even those who resist them, all of these are likely to use English; even the Irish terrorists who wish to bomb the British out of their island.
English, like an all-conquering wave, washes around and over all the world's politicians and agitators and a multitude of others. But it does not include a majority of the world's people, nor even a majority in Europe, that continent of anglophonia.
A recent news item "English is taking over in Europe" discussed the situation, pointing out that Catalan, with more speakers than Danish or Finnish, has no language rights in the Union and that many other minority languages also have no recognition. The 11 official languages have translation rights, but interpreters are often not available and working documents are seldom available for all 11. There is a hierarchy of languages in the Union and English has moved steadily to the top: most of the Union's external documents already use it.
In 1970 60% of EU official documents were first drafted in French and 40% in German; by 1997 English came up with 45% and French with 40%. This is less the result of British influence or pressure than the overwhelming importance of the United States in world trade, politics, science and even culture and above all in business. The board-rooms use English.
Significantly, with the inexorable advance of globalization, a recent American academic study concluded that measures such as the French-language policy conflict with free movement of goods, services, labour and capital: "Such an interpretation could lead corporate lawyers to challenge national language legislation and demand an English-only market throughout the EU."
When a world democracy is mooted, the discussion is always among that minority of political activitists who carry on their manoevuvres and propaganda largely in English, or additionally in one or more of the other “big” world languages, such as French and German. Indeed, this is what the European Union is now on the point of making an official policy, thus depriving the majority of European citizens whose English is merely passable or less to the status of second-class citizens. The Union is being driven to do this by the brutal fact of the imminent arrival of new language groups - speaking Czech, Hungarian, Polish and other tongues - making the prospect of interminable interpretation and translations a reality. No one engaged in administration can envisage that future with equanimity: it offers a nightmare of grotesque proportions. The instinctive “political” response is to fudge and jettison democratic principle for the sake of expediency.
The usual remedy from the heads-in-sand political theorists, most of whom are bi-lingual or multi-lingual themselves, is to mouth platitudes such as "everyone speaks English now" (because all their associates do so) or "it will happen, whether we like it or not - English will become used everywhere." Part of this reaction is dislike or incomprehension of the few possible democratic solutions to the problem and part is a failure to think seriously about it at all. The introduction of a second international language for all looks at the same time too radical and too utopian to be considered, and so it is not considered.
Yet several years ago, in "Le Defi des Langues", a distinguished linguist, Claude Piron, did consider the whole question in depth and his conclusions were less pessimistic. It is not an impractical solution to require all the members of the EU to use an international language - Esperanto - as an official language, leaving each and every member state on an equality, all having to translate their own documents into the one official language. None would be unfairly advantaged, and the simplicity and ease of working in Esperanto would ensure that in a fairly brief time anyone wishing to use the language for business or negotiation would have no difficulty.
The kernel of the language problem lies in the primacy of language to our every thought and to our ways of seeing the world. That is what provides the basis of social unity and what is so damaging to relations between social group when is it is lacking. Our childhood use of language gives us the keys to our inter-relationships with family, friends and strangers. Without that, there is no society, except in a very elementary and ineffective way. One convinced user of the language declared "an Esperantist is an internationalist who means it" and it may have to be said that a supporter of an international second language is one who believes in a world democracy. Unlike, that is, those who merely theorize and talk about it.
John Roberts
Comment on this letter
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
Comments on this letter
|
|