One commentary that I read for this class was titled "The English Language of Freedom" that was published in Forbes on May 20, 2010. This commentary caught my attention because I found it incredibly problematic and thought-provoking at the same time. The central assertion of this article was that English, as a language, directly leads to increased democracy, freedom, and innovation. The author claims that countries that prevent or simply do not embrace the spread or strong presence of English are dooming themselves for a future of decreased success. For example, the author states that Muslim countries failed to understand Western principles, which then led to a lack of interest in learning English and the failure of democracy. He also asserts that it is problematic that few Chinese people speak English, as this means they do not have "any conception of the liberal tradition that the language enshrines."
I find the author's assertion both that English is tied to freedom and that countries that hold different languages are unable to reach the same level of enlightenment and innovation to be extremely problematic and offensive. In the article, the author writes, "In the meantime we must make a much more concerted and determined effort to repeat the Macaulay initiative, pushing to have English spoken and read in large portions of the world, especially in western Asia, Africa and Latin America." He openly pushes for an increase in the English language throughout the world, as he believes it directly facilitates and creates economic and political freedom and success.
Like our discussion about Turkey and the diversity of languages there, I believe this is where the issue of unity and perceived superiority comes in conflict with diversity and difference. In this case, I strongly believe that there are benefits and insights that come from all different languages and all different histories. I believe it would be a significant mistake to strive for English as main, dominant language throughout the world, as this would inevitably lead to language death, and in the process, cultural and historical death, as well. I feel as though the author was culturally insensitive and vastly misinformed in his argument for the complete superiority of English to all other languages.
Moreover, his belief that English is the only language that can be tied to democracy and freedom seems completely flawed on multiple accounts. First (and very obviously/technically), the foundations of democracy were in grounded in Greek society. Furthermore, I believe there are many more forms of freedom than just democracy. The author is clearly coming from a very euro-centric/American-centric point of view, as countless conflicts have been waged in the name of freedom all over the world, from people speaking many languages. Furthermore, many wars for and times of "freedom" within the United States have resulted in absolutely no freedom for certain members of society (African Americans, Native Americans), which illustrates how this author's conception of freedom is grounded in racist ideas of what freedom entails and who deserves freedom, or else is able to completely overlook these jarring examples. Moreover, there are many other factors, such as economic systems and government implementation and action within a political system, that can affect how much freedom actually exists. Therefore, to simply state that English is the primary, best language of freedom is incorrect and problematic.
Because of this class, I have come to appreciate how much of an influence language has on a society, on our thought processes, on our perceptions of the world, etc. Nevertheless, I highly doubt language has as much of an impact as this author believes- or, that only the English language is so closely tied with values while other languages are inherently not. I highly doubt that one language can be more of a facilitator of freedom than another. Perhaps one language is connected more to actions in history related to freedom (of course, this again depends on the perspective that one is coming from), but it somehow seems overly simplistic and biased to state that English facilitates freedom and innovation more than other languages.
Because I was unable to find research literature of past studies regarding language and innovation/freedom, I pose this question: Is it possible for a language, in itself, to be tied to increased innovation, creativity, and freedom? Is it possible that because language is so intrinsically tied to culture and cultural advancements that some languages happen to facilitate more creation than others? Or is this simply a biased, oversimplified, or blatantly incorrect statement?
No comments:
Post a Comment