Sunday, November 20, 2016

Languagism

We have racism, sexism, authoritarianism, and a lot of other dehumanizing "'ISM". I became aware of a new one, albeit it might already have been discovered, but I never heard about it which means it is not part of global awareness yet, the so-called mainstream. This "'ISM" is languagism. It describes the behaviour of someone who is condescending/aggressive/unfair/violent/etc., of someone who discriminate, this time not based on race, gender, knowledge, or culture but on the mastery of a language: that is, its grammar and vocabulary, its rhetorical use. I acknowledge that at the rise/beginning of a language and certainly during the middle age, the mastery of a language, which included shaping and developing the language itself, language was both vehicule and content.

Today, all major languages adapt to the times but they have achieved a level of maturity where they are mostly a vehicule of information. This is important because as globalization is reaching an exponential growth, we need a common language. Like always in the history of mankind, the choice has been based on usefulness and simplicity, and the choice has been English. Already for more than 40 years, English does not belong to England like French does not belong to France and "so weiter". English has become the world language and as such belongs to all countries of the world.

I would argue that discussion, exchange, communication is at the very base of our survival as a species as we continue our globalization. This "eye-to-eye" communication depends on the content (information, values, passion, interest, etc.) of what we communicate, not on the container (language).
Unfortunately, some countries value more the container than its content and I argue that this belief jeopardizes a sustainable future for mankind.

To demonstrate this issue, I take the example of an average North American or Australian citizen. My experience is that there is a tendency to not put a value on a person based on its mastery of the English grammar and its rhetorical use. They are by far more interested in the content. Europeans including Germans, will automatically put a lower value on a speaker who do not master the German language if (s)he speaks German. This automatism is also reciprocal, that is, they can not envision/comprehend/believe that people speaking English do not do the same. This leads Germans to be more hesitant to engage in a conversation in English when compared to non-English natives from say, North America. As a consequence, one will observe German speaking people organize "international" events  in which German is the main language, even if the majority of the International participants do not speak German. Although it is possible to understand that if you host a conference, you might feel justify in wanting to come out "good", the backlash for the International participants is significant and will impact negatively the expected trust-building effect of the conference, and will probably block partly the information exchange and most certainly freeze the development of collaboration, and trust. Indeed, if one believes that the container  (language mastery) is as important as the content, it is possible to understand the urge to organize an "international" conference where the language is German.

We ought to work on the awareness, that in our globalizing context, a beautiful text may be a piece of art indeed but when it comes to communication between people, what counts is the content, not the container. In other words, we ought to dissociate rhetoric from content if we truly desire to engage in a sustainable global world. For most countries, English is a second or third language and the actual need to work together, build trust, work on creative paths forward requires that we separate rhetoric from content. We should have learned long ago from politicians that rhetoric is an art, nothing more. It says nothing about trust, truth, nor ethics.

That concept says nothing about the value of regional languages. Local languages have their valued necessities and importance. We need them as well, including the dialects because they allow locally a better expression of our inner self. They also allow artistic expressions not possible in a second of third language. Each language also possess characteristics which themselves support different human traits which are in sync with the regional culture. All this diversity is the ground for shaping a better human future.

And yet, we need to communicate eye-to-eye with each other, and English is the language we have chosen. It is highly time that we practice this eye-to-eye thing and separate rhetoric from content.

And no, nothing in these concepts is abstract and out of reach. It is all very near if we simply open up to it and are willing to experiment with it. Hey, it is even fun!