Language Is the Perfect Instrument

Language Is the Perfect Instrument of Empire:

Case for Teaching English Globally

Though the British empire over half a century ago, the mark it left on the world remains. The many countries colonized by Britain continue to use English colloquially to this day. There's really no surprise in that; English hegemony in matters of politics and economics was accompanied by occasionally draconian processes for teaching the native inhabitants the language of the Empire. This is, of course, the reason why English is the primary language of America, Canada, Australia and its surrounding islands, and even continues as an official language in countries like India where over 400 native languages still eke out a speaking. Where Britain colonized, she brought not only military might but also linguistic force to bear. Almost a hundred countries either use English exclusive for official purposes (as in America) or have it declared as an official or national language. In the majority of those, English is not a native language to the bulk of the population. In countries such as Australia or America, where the majority of inhabitants are of British or at least European ancestry, the nationalization of the language would make some sense. However, in many of these countries there is neither a significant population of English-extraction nor a solid population that actually speaks the national language. In the Philippines, for example, according to Ethnologue's databases, only 52% of the population even speak English as a second language, despite its stat

The fall of the British empire might potentially have led to the rejuvenation of native languages, were it not for the fact that England left behind a sort of bastard child which rose to world dominance as quickly as its mother country fell behind. Today America is the single remaining super-power, and though this nation does not (yet) have quite the military empire of its predecessor, our economic hegemony is secure. Additionally, American and Britain together have been increasingly focused in the last four years on military and social conquest as part of the war on terror, which once again may serve to expand the Imperial usage of English as a second language. Today, there is not a country in the world entirely independent of American influence. So it is that English -or at least that substandard American drawl which passes for English in much of the world-- remains a dominant language. English is employed by a lion's share of international corporations, which in themselves form a sort of plutocratic empire. The majority of Europeans and Africans learn English as a second language, as its global dominance makes it a useful tool for transcending language barriers between individuals. Because of its importance to trade, English is considered the lingua franca of capitalism and "democratic" (which is to say westernized) diplomacy.

Because of this importance to international politics and business arrangements, and because of its widespread vernacular usage, English has become the leading candidate -perhaps the only serious candidate-- for the development of a single global language.

There are some people who mourn the coming of a global language. The idea has somewhat fearful Biblical overtones, as it is said that God himself ordained that people should not all speak the same language less they face a new destruction. More relevant to the majority of non-English speaking cultures, the coming of a new global language is likely to mean the end of their own native language. It is estimated that, with current trends continuing, 90% of the earth's languages will become "dead" within a few generations. Already 50% are only spoken by elders and no longer transmitted to children. (Crawford) the erasing of a language is in many ways the erasing of a culture. Language and culture are intimately tied up together - one can imagine how little of the American past, for example, would be intelligible to future generations if they spoke only Chinese. So many works of art would become lost to the understanding, as would histories. It is understandable that many people hesitate to lose this past. Despite these problems, it seems likely that English will continue to be the dominant international language.

Language Dominance and English-as-a-Second Language Education

The widespread of English as a dominant international language has accelerated the needs for English learning and teaching. If English is to be a global lingua franca, then it becomes imperative that educated and ambitious people everywhere be capable of communication in English. If there is to be a global language, it becomes immediately imperative that all those who may need to communicate outside their immediate family or tribe structures be capable of communicating in English. This includes anyone involved in academics and science, arts, politics, business or negotiations of any sort, leadership within their communities, or any service industry which might come into contact with foreign citizens. Moreover, those who do not learn the language will be locked into a social position where they cannot easily move into a different career path which requires English usage. The vital social importance of learning English will be covered in more depth momentarily. Suffice to say here that the global dominance of the language necessitates the transmission of the language to those that do not speak it currently. This transmission obviously requires teachers.

Today, teaching English as a foreign or second language (abbreviated as EFL or ESL) has become a field in high demand internationally. Many schools exist now in English speaking countries with the specific goal of training native speakers how to teach English without understanding the native languages of their students. These trained EFL instructors may travel to almost any country on the globe to hawk their linguistic wares. According to the Boston Language Institute, "There is a huge global demand for qualified English teachers. Salaries for entry level teachers are above the median earning standard for the country in which you will be teaching. Private free-lance tutoring can bring in enough extra to allow you to save a comfortable amount." This is somewhat amusing, as in America the average salary of entry level school teachers nationwide is below the median earning standard for this country. Certainly the demand for such teachers is vary high. In many countries, immigration can be fast-tracked for those with English teaching schools.

There are several ways in which English is taught as a second language in other countries. Many nations include English education in primary schools. This is common not only in countries where English is a primary official or natural language, but also in countries that merely wish their educated youth to be able to communicate in English. Most European countries teach English as a second language to their young. Most people who learn English in school will not be likely to need EFL instruction later in life. Another form of English education involves teaching by non-native English teachers who instruct academically, much as one would learn a foreign language in America. These classes may be instructed both in English and the student's native language and tend to focus more on aspects like appropriate grammar and spelling than on mere usage. EFL instruction, on the other hand, tends to be taught by native English speakers entirely in English. These teachers may not even understand the languages of those they teach. EFL/ESL education has a long history of theory and practice. Classes are usually available both for large groups (often in universities, churches, or other cultural centers) and as private tutoring sessions which can pay the teachers up to $50 an hour.

The relationship between culture and language

As mentioned before, there is some controversy about the development of a global language. This is due to the fact that as English develops as a dominant language, other vernacular languages are increasingly marginalized to a degree that they may cease to exist altogether. The way in which English teaching facilitates this is covered in more depth in the next session. Suffice to say here that to the degree that English is used in every day life, other native languages cease to be used. This is important because there is a strong link between language and culture, so that the effacement of one becomes the extinction of the other.

The link between language and culture is a very primal one, based on at least three points of anchorage between the two. First, the existence or non-existence of words within a vocabulary can shape and change thought patterns and discourses, so that a people's world-view is truly fashioned by the language with which they approach the world. Secondly, the historical nature of language allows the transmission and comprehension of older aspects of culture, such as oral traditions, ancient texts, and other rituals and traditions which depend on text. Finally, the shared bonds of language create group cohesion which otherwise may be lost in the uniformity of global non-culture.

The way in which language shapes thought may not be immediately apparent, but a moment of thought will immediately make it clear. Consider the fact that the Iroquois are said not to have had a strong word for the singular "I," and that they subsequently developed what was arguably the longest lasting communal representative democracy the world has ever known. The Inuit, whose culture revolves around the arctic world, have dozens of words for snow - this sort of technical knowledge allows quick and accurate transmission of conditions and training in survival.

In Western terms, one remembers that Jesus Christ was said to be "The Word," yet in the original Greek this indicates not only a spoken word but also the Logos - the root term for intellectual reason, for Meaning within context (be that the context of a sentence, a life, a history, or a universe); logos was rational order. The difference between saying that a religious figure is the Word (which at its most profound seem to indicate a kind of command or definition) and saying that he is the universal intellect or the ordering principle of the universe is profoundly different. The loss of a language which has a term for the universal intellectual Order leads to the loss of an entire way of approaching the universe. (Luckily, Greek and its attended philosophies, including the Stoicism which focused on Logos, were largely preserved by those who honored its contributions). Many dying languages contain thoughts that are no less profound. For example, the Inuit language has different terms for knowledge which could allow for a far more reasoned debate between two people who both claimed to "know" the truth. Utsimavaa is to know from experience; nalunaiqpaa is to be "no longer unaware" of something; (Walker) other words cover knowing from reason or tradition. The Boro language of India has a word, Onsra, which means "to love for the last time." (Walker) What poetry a word like this carries!

The loss of these languages is the loss of a way of thinking about and speaking about the world.

When the language is lost, the pattern of thought is lost. Culture is not, at its base, about tribal uniforms or various foodstuffs. It is not really about one's style of craft-making or music, though these generally are closely related to world view. Culture is about the way in which a group thinks about the world - and as thought is dependant on language, culture is inherently about language.

Language not only defines world views and philosophical approaches to life, it may also show the way in which a culture treats the world - the very meaning of words defining relationships between man and his environment. This is evidenced in the following quote:

Language, more than any other single human creation, is the living artifact of a culture. Constructed over successive generations, it embodies the cumulative memory of a people's beliefs and knowledge, their stories, their names for things, the conventions that they use to tell each other about the world. A young Maidu named Farrell Cunningham, for instance, has used his knowledge of Maidu plant names to unlock the secrets of traditional ecology; the fact that the Maidu name for "pine tree" translates as "wind-lessening tree," he says, indicates that the pine was used to shelter oak trees, thus protecting the acorn harvest. (Slater)

Language is, of course, also related to culture in the fairly obvious terms of group identity and the preservation of tradition. Many cultures have oral traditions which have been passed down from generation to generation. For example, Finnish story tellers for well over a two thousand years sang the same epic songs about the creation of the world and the ancient heroes. The last singer of these old songs died about a hundred years ago. Luckily, much of the epic cycle was transcribed and preserved in the Kalevala. One may see the wealth and beauty of old songs by considering that this epic poem has long been credited as one of the primary sources for J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings saga, which recently became a blockbuster phenomena, and has always been a best-seller. However wonderful the preservation of some scrap of Finnish may be, it is but a little improvement in the scope of the world-wide annihilation of oral traditions. As thousands of languages die out, they take with them millennia of oral tradition and other cultural wealth such as religious rites spoken in that language.

By removing a people from their native way of thinking and from their native history, and finally giving them a homogenous global language that removes the barrier between their people and all other peoples, one effectively kills the culture. This sociocide, or death of a society, should be considered a serious threat and harm. There's a tragicomic story that comes from a German explorer in Venezuela. The story tells of coming into a village where a parrot was talking away, with remarkably proficiency. He "asked the villagers what it was saying. None knew since the parrot spoke Atures and was its last native speaker." (Walker) This story has a certain aptness to it - with the sudden rise in globalization and the rate at which the young are not being educated in their native languages and only the slowly dying-off elderly still speak the tongue, we run a global risk of creating a world where only parrots - be they the long lived Amazon sorts or the mechanical parrots of tape recorders and linguistic records - will remember the old languages or truly remain a part of the old peoples.

Can teaching EFL be a threat to local ways of life and languages?

If the globalization of the English language indeed threatens other languages with extinction, one must ask if the active teaching of English as a second or foreign language is likewise destructive. Is the EFL teacher who goes to Japan or India to hold conferences guilty of cultural genocide aimed at those people? Are EFL teachers the rearguard of the British Empire still at work slashing and burning through the colonies, or are they perhaps the first attacks of the new American Hegemony? One might immediately think that this sounds a little extreme. Certainly, most people attending EFL seminars are there of their own free will, and it's hard to imagine committing any sort of -cide, let alone some form of genocide, on a consenting audience. Of course, activists would argue that assisted cultural suicide is a form of cultural genocide, just as assisted suicide has frequently been judged murder in America. However, in all truth English language seminars for adults are probably not the most significant risks to the linguistic integrity of a nation, as they seldom create such as deep understanding of the language that students are likely to adopt it as their vernacular at home and in relationships with friends. A far more serious issue is that of indoctrinating children into the dominant English language when they are sufficiently young that the language becomes their primary vehicle of speech.

As mentioned earlier, English education is common in school systems globally. While in many cases this education coexists peacefully with education in the native-language in much the same way that American schoolchildren may be taught Spanish or French without jeopardizing their natural English-language skills. However, in many cases rather than merely teaching English as a second language or as a subject, schools may entirely educate non-English speaking children in English, requiring the immersion of the student in English in order to succeed in school. In these cases, English may be the language which children speak most frequently outside the home and with their peers, and will almost inevitably be the language that they teach to their own children.

Training children so extensively in English as children (which is extremely common in countries where English is the official or national language) may serve to eradicate their natural languages, as English is increasingly seen as the only appropriate, intellectual, or public language. One African musician, Freddy Macha, speaks of how many of his friends do not speak the native languages to their children because they do not want to confuse them. He quotes these friends as saying "I can't be speaking my own African language. In school they are supposed to learn good English." So it is that the extensive teaching of English to school children can quickly result in the loss of their native languages and its transmission between generations.

In some cases, English-only education has been used to intentionally attack the culture of a people. During the last century, for example, thousands of young native Americans were removed from their parents and sent to boarding schools where they were immersed in English, punished for speaking their native tongue, and generally educated to believe that their native languages were primitive and ought no longer be spoken. Horror stories from this time attest to students being beaten for speaking their native languages, or returning home having forgotten much of their mother tongue. The justification given for this by the Federal Government? That the forced use of English would enable the Indians to be held under the "military hand" of government and forcibly integrate them into "civilization." As an 1887 report read:

Their barbarous dialects should be blotted out and the English language substituted.... The object of greatest solicitude should be to break down the prejudices of tribe among the Indians; to blot out the boundary lines which divide them into distinct nations, and fuse them into one homogeneous mass. Uniformity of language will do this a? nothing else will.... The first step to be taken toward civilization, toward teaching the Indians the mischief and folly of continuing in their barbarous practices, is to teach them the English language. (Atkins)

One can easily see from this historical document, as from the history of many races that have lost their languages, how the very process of teaching a new language - particularly to the young or with the view of inculcating any aged group into the linguistic majority - can act to destroy the language and culture of a people. Does this mean, then, that language teachers ought to be seen as cultural villains, and that their work is tantamount to the cruel colonization of native people?

Though one might be tempted to give a resounding yes! To this, such a response would be hasty. Indeed, English language education is a vital part of the tragic destruction of native languages and cultures. However, there are many other forces that also contribute to the destruction of cultures. Among these deadly forces are poverty, economic hegemony, war and military occupation, and the infiltration or appropriation of a culture by foreign settlers - be those emigrants or corporations who set up operations in an area and then require their employees to follow corporate rules which effectively dismantle cultures. Because there are many ways for a people to be destroyed, there are many ways to protect them. Many native people have discovered that though learning the language of the colonial or hegemonic powers does threaten their ability to maintain their independent language and culture,

The importance & advantages of learning to use English

In learning English, the student is not merely replacing their native language with a new speech; they are additionally learning the jargon of the masters of society. It may be a great pity that the vast majority of the world's resources are focused in the hands of a very few men and the corporations and nations they control and/or represent -nonetheless, this is the case and those men speak English. As little as one may like this fact, the fact remains that the world is dominated by English speakers. Moreover, in nations where the official or unofficial national language is English (as it is in a striking number of countries globally), not only are the global forces English-speaking but the national and local leaders also speak English. In learning this language, then, one not only learns a language in which to speak but also a language in which to litigate or to perform business.

Though a great deal can be accomplished in terms of protecting one's heritage through isolation from the world, there also comes a point -particularly in the modern world - where one must defend one's heritage by interaction with the world.

When native cultures and linguistic minorities are at risk, they will be best able to defend their rights and interests if they can communicate with the linguistic majority. Considering the infamous distaste of majority speakers for the work of learning a minority language, this generally means that the member of the minority will have to learn another language if he or she is to convincingly put forth a case. Across the world, minorities have found that they are at significant risk from the majority. For example, native American tribes today speak of the risks they run when major corporations use their remaining treaty-recognized lands as dumping zones. "Native America occupies approximately 4% of the United States but receives the majority of its nuclear waste..." (Salaita) More modern discrimination can be seen in recent laws that "defined" native tribes based on very strict blood percentages or recognized "pure" tribes, disallowing any others to even call themselves Indians for the purpose of describing their art work! In these cases, if the natives cannot speak English, they will have a great deal of trouble defending their rights in court or to the public. As unfair as it may be, public opinion is as likely to be swayed based on oratorical skills as on the ethical evidence of one's argument, and courts are no more fair. A grasp of the language of the enemy, as it were, allows one to combat them in the court of public opinion and national and international law.