Society utopia: concepts, structures, and philosophical foundations

Turning Language Into Law

In the eyes of the world, the passage of an "English Only" law would strengthen the image and identity of the U.S. because it would legitimize the nation and give nationalists a central pillar with which to unite American culture. As far as national unity and stability, I believe that the passage of such a law would be detrimental to the United States and would forego much of the richness and diversity that the country was built upon. Having an official language does nothing to create a strong national unity, as many people who are for an official language claim. Instead, it fuels separation of culture and unfair racial and cultural discrimination. National identity is made up of more than languages, but instead encompasses the ethnic, religious, and cultural diversity and values that make up a society.

The idea that something so widely varying and seeming arbitrary as language could be the answer to uniting a country as culturally diverse as the U.S. is preposterous. As author King (1997) states, "Language is a convenient surrogate for nonlinguistic claims that are often awkward to articulate, for they amount to a demand for more political and economic power." I agree with him, that the "English Only" movement started out by attracting those who were more idealistic about creating a melting pot out of American society, but the movement has morphed into a launching pad for reactionary conservatives eager to try to secure as much power for their own cultures as possible. These people are often not able to accurately articulate their own feelings and desires, and lump their emotions and strong political and cultural beliefs into the movement. To these people, as King (1997) states, "…language is a symbol, an icon." Symbols and icons are important for movements and in the fight for a united national identity, but they are not the central issue at question.

The connection between a national identity and a singular official language does not exist. India, with its 19 official languages (King, 1997), is more united as a country than Canada or Belgium (King, 1997). So clearly language has little to do with national identity. The author refers this unity in the absence of a single official language as "unique otherness." If a nation wants to be more united, then it needs to rely on the strength of its diversity, instead of forcing itself to adhere to a singular identity or culture than could potentially offend certain citizens looking to practice their own traditions. AS King points out, historically speaking there is no evidence that a government can successful control the languages of its citizens in order to create a more unified state. In fact, quite the contrary is true, as evidenced by countries like Canada, when the English speaking and French speaking populations are nearly always in disagreement about the correct cultural path to follow.