From Soft Power to Soft Ignorance in One Step
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
Head of international contacts and press relations service of the Gorbachev Foundation. Foreign affairs expert and journalist
Otto von Bismarck was not a political analyst, and he lived long before Joseph Nye developed the notion of “soft power.” But the Iron Chancellor was a man of vision, known for his capacity for serious thought. When asked what he thought was the decisive development in modern history, Bismarck replied, “It is that the North Americans speak English.” The 20th century saw the English language expand its territorial reach. Why and how did this occur? How lasting is this as a phenomenon? Should it be opposed?
Otto von Bismarck was not a political analyst, and he lived long before Joseph Nye developed the notion of “soft power.” But the Iron Chancellor was a man of vision, known for his capacity for serious thought. When asked what he thought was the decisive development in modern history, Bismarck replied, “It is that the North Americans speak English.”
At the time, the English language was not yet the global means of communication that it became in the 20th century. It was not even the leading language in Europe. At that time, French was the language of diplomacy, while German and English were the languages of science and technology. The languages that boasted the greatest regional spread were Spanish, Arabic and Russian. Asia remained, linguistically, a huge patchwork quilt.
The 20th century saw the English language expand its territorial reach. Why and how did this occur? How lasting is this as a phenomenon? Should it be opposed?
Practical Advantages English Offers
What we call “globalization” is not all that new as a phenomenon. It experienced two powerful boosts: after WWII and, decades later, when the Cold War ended. Throughout the 20th century the world was becoming ever smaller and increasingly interdependent. Hence the need for a global language that could perform the same communicative function across the planet, a role hitherto taken by the key languages mentioned above in their respective regions of influence, that is, allowing communication and interaction among various nations.
It was not at all obvious early on that English would become this medium, although today it seems quite natural. English had a presence on all continents. British people had brought it to India, Africa and Australia, to all the corners of the world where they retained their dominance for another half-century to come, and of course, to America, whose potential Bismarck so perceptively envisioned.
Today, around 400 million people consider English their mother tongue, but a great many more, over a billion, some estimates indicate 1.5 billion, count English as their second or third language. Most English speakers are far from having a perfect command of it (a frequently-used formulation quite relative in meaning). There is an opinion that this has a negative impact on the language, simplifying it. But even if this is the case, this is merely a side effect. The benefits and advantages are of much greater significance.
A real practical advantage for native speakers is that English can be used for basic communication in most countries across the world. Furthermore, English has become an instrument for many members of the political and financial elites, and has been transformed into the universal language of science and tourism. There are also other advantages that benefit countries rather than people, particularly the United States.
Influence is probably the simplest and most precise interpretation of the term “soft power.” English has become a means of influence for the world’s leading power and its ally - Britain. However, the language promotes influence, it does not ensure it. What matters far more than the nature of the language itself, is that the English-speaking world has, over many decades, acted as a powerful generator of new developments in politics, the global economy, science, technology, and culture (chiefly mass culture of course).
This situation will, presumably, change gradually. An extrapolation can be drawn from today’s political and linguistic picture of the world to one or two decades into the future, with changes and unexpected developments increasingly possible and even probable thereafter. But English language’s dominance will, probably prove to be quite persistent, if only through inertia.
English Speaking World
The chief reason for this is that knowing a language that has already become a means of global communication is an asset for individuals seeking success in their own country or abroad. This language has the greatest communicative value; it opens up access to the wider world. It is difficult to imagine that a regional language could easily, cataclysms aside, supplant English, even though of course, these boast their own advantages, because often, as with Spanish, Arabic or Russian, they are the individual’s first or second native language, so there is no need to for further study.
Chinese is a special case. There can be little doubt that China has a great future, although the country’s progress will probably not be without its own twists and turns. The future of the Chinese language is another matter. Certainly, hundreds of millions of people will speak Chinese, but these will most probably be overwhelmingly ethnic Chinese, including those permanently resident abroad. It can hardly be expected that foreigners, en masse, will start learning Chinese, except for those living in the country, for it is too difficult a task, and, furthermore, there are few places outside the country where it can be used.
Pitfalls
Low Business Index Report, 2012
But while using this powerful lever of influence, both the Americans and the British tend not to be aware that the dominance of the English language is fraught with disadvantages and pitfalls. The practical communicative value of foreign languages does not mean much to them, and it is rare to find an average American who can speak even one foreign language. Naturally, not only American tourists, but businesspeople or politicians abroad will first turn to people who can speak English. The range of contacts open to them is therefore limited, and their perceptions and attitudes are often warped. This has affected American views of the Arab states, Iran and, probably, of Russia in the 1990s. Could this be why the Islamic revolution in Iran, the Arab Spring and anti-American sentiment in Russia were so unexpected in America (and the West more broadly)? For North Americans, even their Latin American neighbors are less than well-known. So, there is but a short step from “soft power” to “soft ignorance”.
The prevalence of English will inevitably encounter resistance, though not necessarily deliberate, stubborn or harsh. This can be seen both in the persistent promotion of other languages within international organizations, and the struggle for linguistic diversity that may manifest itself efforts to preserve and rescue rare languages (this is less a case of resisting English, and more one of resisting the dominance of the country’s main language). Sometimes it takes the form of a purely demonstrative rejection of English. The larger the country, the greater its cultural heritage, the less the probability of the English language spreading on a mass scale. In the streets of Oslo or Copenhagen, any passer-by will almost certainly answer a question asked in English. The probability is lower in Paris or Munich. It remains to be seen how the situation will develop in Russia.
Russian Language - Investment Opportunities
Russian signs in China
Russians are less concerned about the destiny of the English language, and far more about the future of their own language, across the former USSR, in Europe and the world at large. Will it remain a language of international communication? Can Russia use it as an instrument of soft power? What language will Russians speak in 15 or 20 years’ time with Moldovans, Kazakhs, or Lithuanians? How will they communicate between themselves?
Predictions that Russian was in imminent danger of vanishing from the international area failed to materialize, even though they were voiced by people who could neither be called ignorant nor Russophobic. Many people in Russia thought along similar lines. But Russian has retained its presence in urban centers in most of the former Soviet republics. People understand it, and in Lithuania or Latvia, for example, they will most probably answer you if you address them in Russian. Our quite numerous former compatriots in Israel speak Russian (and very well, too), as they do in America (less well, as a rule). Russian popular culture, satellite TV, the Internet, and other media are instrumental in maintaining and strengthening the Russian language’s status. There is also the factor of inertia. Regional languages are, in general, rather prone to inertia, although there have been cases of their rapid erosion. The German language, for example, performed a regional function in Central Europe between the two World Wars, lost this role for obvious reasons after WWII.
In the final count, we should not pin our hopes on inertia. The investment opportunities presented by the Russian language are in a sense akin to those of the Russian economy. Does this country have the ability to create new technologies, new meanings, new terms and word structures that have no equivalents in other languages and denote positive phenomena in human society? Russia, not for the first time in history, does not provide an answer. I believe that the answer can only be found through free and democratic development. We should neither fear the English language nor to encroach on its global role. We do have the capacity to support the continued expansion of the Russian language – for ourselves and for other users.
(no votes) |
(0 votes) |
