SSP200 Globalization

Name:
Professor:
SSP200-1838
December X, 2016
Globalization: Lost Voices
Globalization is the increasing spread or integration of countries’ individual economies, languages, cultures, ideas, and products. When looking at whether this can have a positive or negative impact on the world, there are many aspects to look at on both sides of the fence. It is an intricate subject that may be seen in many perspectives. It can be argued that globalization is positive because it allowed for the rapid spread of technology but one can also say that is a negative effect. However, when globalization impacts small indigenous communities that speak uncommon languages and have unique cultures, it is difficult to justify the struggles that they face because of it. Globalization leads to the extinction of language and culture, effectively creating a struggle for the people who are impacted and are left with no choice but to assimilate.
There are about 7,000 languages spoken in the world today. Mandana Seyfeddinipur is a linguist that gave a lecture on Ted Talks called “Endangered Languages: Why it Matters”. In her speech, she states that “about half of the planet’s population speak 50 languages while the other half speak 6,950 languages.” About one language dies every two weeks. This is a concern even for the United Nations who have assembled a group of linguists to find out what causes a language to die. The group has written a document for UNESCO titled “Language Vitality and Endangerment”.

The group estimates that ninety percent of all languages will die by the end of the 21st century and that there are nine total factors that contribute the loss of languages. The most commonly used factor, and perhaps the most important, is “intergenerational language transmission”. This factor is determined by whether or not the language is being taught to the next generation. It is one that is very much dependent on the independence of a community that speaks an endangered language. It is difficult for a small community to maintain their culture, language, and independence in the face of rapid and enforced globalization.
There are many aspects of globalization that causes lack of intergenerational language transmission; however, none are more deliberately heinous than the act of colonization. Since the days of Columbus in the 15th century, natives were not only driven away from their own land and killed, but also forced to assimilate by making their children go to school and banning their languages as well. Hawaiians were forced by the U.S. at the start of the 20th century when English became the official language of education, even before government. Similar to what was done to the Native Americans, the native tongue was banned from schools. Instead, it was English that was being taught in schools.
New generations grew up learning and using, primarily English. The next generation would grow to speak English with their parents and not learning Hawaiian at all. Today, the Hawaiian community, along with the Welsh who have struggled against the British and the Berbers of North Africa, specifically Morocco and Algeria, against the Arabs, have safely secured the survival of their language, culture and even identity by teaching them to new generations. They have done this by opening schools that teach in their native language, or creating classes and even meetings, private and public, that focus on teaching a once dying language.
The second factor determined by the UN is simple and straightforward, the “absolute number of speakers”. Smaller language groups are obviously more prone to globalization because of their lack of social power and influence and can quickly die. Another is the “proportion of speakers within the total population” for example, the proportion of Berbers to Arabs in Tunisia. The reason for this factor is the speed at which the larger group swallows the smaller group that depends on it.
“Shifts in domains of language use” is a factor which is determined by measuring the use of a language in aspects of society. Is the language an official language of government and education? Is the language used in the dominant economic sector of the community? Is it used in the media? These are only few of the many important questions that make up the basis of this factor. It is the most important factor after the number of speakers and it is the easiest to change as it is the result of most political policies.
Whereas other international relations theories focus on material factors, the constructivists’ theory gives much considerations to the significance of ideas. Instead of viewing a nation from a survival perspective, it regards the identities and well-being of the people as very useful factors of historical development (Fosnot, page 6). They are much concerned with the discourse in a country because it helps to manifest and build the beliefs and interests of the people. This implies that the theory pays much attention to the factors of change. Given that today people reside in a world where the ancient norms and identities are being sabotaged, the constructivists have presented ideas that explicitly explain the occurrences. However, power and politics is relevant in defining the modern identities (culture and language), the constructivists put much emphasis on how some of these aspects were created, how they developed and how they determine the manner in which different countries approach varied issues (Fosnot, page 9). Therefore, it really matters to conclude those who got assimilated after the wars lost their identities and cultures through the development of other new identities that were either influenced by politics or international ties. For example, the United State of America has influenced the identity of many countries through their “role” of being the “international policeman.” To be specific, the case of Mexico clearly supports the premise. Many Mexicans today have embraced the United States “pop culture”, which has basically changed the way they groom, how some of them talk and how they view the rest of the entire international community. Arguably, it might one day erode the entire Mexican culture, given that the younger generation has embraced this more than any other group. Besides, the trade pact signed between United States, Canada and Mexico has also contributed to that in some way. As a result of this pact, Mexico provides one of best markets for the American goods that factor in the “pop” culture to some fair extent.
On the contrary, the realists’ arguments explains how countries worked to improve their influence in the world. This realism theory holds on the assumption that a country’s main concern is self-preservation, and that it would always seek influence to protect itself (Jackson and Georg, page 66). The colonization of Africa is a much relevant illustration. Many African countries that served under the colonial rule ended up with some of their master countries’ culture. Countries that served under the Portuguese like Mozambique, have Portuguese as their official national language. Same applies to the countries that were colonized by the Britons. For example, Kenya.
From the views of Locke, human beings have varied kinds of thoughts that needs to be expressed for some particular reasons. The thoughts are in the man’s mind and cannot be accessed in any way. He explains that in such a case, an external way of communicating this thoughts in required to make them comprehendible to other people (Dawson, 297). Locke refers to words as one of this external ways. Again, he contends that even though these words are well adapted to carry out the purpose of communication, there is no relation between the words and the ideas that they present (Dawson, 298). In fact, if at all there was a usual relation between a man’s ideas and the words that they express, then there would only be one language. To him, the connection between the words and the ideas is entirely arbitrary (Dawson, 298). With his contention on the issue, Locke is trying to justify the simple fact that though words express the same idea, the representation may vary from individual to individual depending on their culture. The case is what is witnessed today, people with different ways of expressing ideas are “compelled” to use common “words” to make their audience understand them.
The use of language in media may not be necessarily politically motivated but it is of extreme importance as well. One can find this to be true when looking at the Arab population. Arabic is an old language that dates back thousands of years. Today, while “modern standard Arabic” is the official language of Arab governments and regional news corporations, most Arabic speakers speak a dialect of Arabic. Modern standard Arabic is considered to be a language of the educated, but even when two educated people who speak two different dialects that are at opposite sides of the spectrum are compared to their root of standard Arabic, such as the Moroccan and Yemeni dialect, it is very uncommon that they would communicate using modern standard Arabic. Instead, they will usually speak in the Egyptian dialect which is unofficially called “the English of the Arab world”. That is owing to the prominence and popularity of Egyptian media and pop culture, such as theatre, music, movies, and TV shows, in the Arab world.
This is also an example of why a language’s “response to new domains and media” is another crucial factor. The globalization of technology, especially in new media, “including broadcast media and the internet” (“Language Vitality and Endangerment,” 2003) are platforms that a dominant language quickly and fully takes advantage of. Even if the less spoken language catches up with the new technology, it would be insufficient because, it would only be on television for a much lesser duration of time.
“Availability of Materials for Language Education and Literacy” is the sixth factor listed in the UNESCO document. This factor is measured by amount of records and documents required to teach a language, including dictionaries, texts, literature and everyday media as well as “the established orthography and literacy tradition”. Unfortunately, the materials required for education and otherwise are usually destroyed upon the initial invasions of lands occupied by indigenous groups.
The case of Hobbes justifies whether availability of materials determines the continuity of a language. His typical treatment of language justifies the development of the mathematical and mechanical language. In my view, Hobbes handling of language can be attributed to the nominalism; however, there is evidence to prove his likening to the nominalist writers. The possible influence of the likes of Francis Bacon is also undeniable. His tradition, is considerably important in understanding the cradle of his language conception. Phillip Pettit in his article, “Made with Words: Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics,” states that the literature culture of Renaissance humanism in England might have influenced his conception of words (Martel 2). And that can be seen in most of his works, which are easily attributed to the English Renaissances tradition. In a nutshell, it’s the literature of his tradition that heavily contributed to his way of expression. If one could destroy those literary pieces, Locke could have had nothing to define his identity as a practitioner. The same can be connected to the people who might need literary materials of their traditions to keep their language and culture alive.
Deborah Cameron, the author of an article titled “Language: Diversity in Danger” which cites the book “Vanishing Voices” by Daniel Nettles and Suzanne Romaine as a source, agrees with the authors that political action must be taken in order to ensure the survival of a language. It should come as no surprise that another factor listed in the UNESCO document is the “governmental and institutional language attitudes and policies, including official status and use”. This is a vital factor that ultimately determines the longevity of a language and its speakers. The Welsh and Hawaiians have seen an increase in the rejuvenation of their language due to various ways of support by the government, including officializing their language. There is also the arguably limited support by the U.S. to the Native Americans by creating reservations, lands specifically used and given to some indigenous tribes in order to maintain a community which strengthens some of the foundations needed for a culture and language to survive.
The “community members’ attitude towards their own language” is another factor that actually depends on the attitude of the larger community towards the smaller community. In countries where people are oppressed and seen as inferior may result in an attitude of self-hate. This is evident by a project which took several African American children in front of a black and white doll and asked them questions. Questions such as “which is the bad doll” were asked and the children would point to the black doll, associating the black doll with every negative word used in the questions and then acknowledging in the end that they look more like the black doll.
Communities affected in this way may not care about the revival of their own culture and language and may even see it as a burden because of the many disadvantages enforced on them by the larger society. Sometimes, due to social and economic struggles, a group may find it easier to assimilate. While this may seem like a choice, it is not necessarily the case. Groups choose to assimilate not because they want their own language and culture to go extinct, but to ensure the survival of their children and their children’s children. It is a sad choice made out of desperation and hopelessness.
While there is no forced assimilation, there are still economically conscious efforts being made that leave no choice for a small group of indigenous people but to assimilate. Some indigenous people encourage assimilation, like the Ainu people of Japan, in an attempt to gain social and economic equality within the larger society. Cameron calls this “‘voluntary’ assimilation”. She writes voluntary in quotes because indigenous people are essentially left with no choice.
The ninth and final factor that determines in the viability of a language is “type and quality of documentation” which serves “as a guide for assessing the urgency of the need for documenting a language, the type and quality of existing language materials must be identified” (page 16). Efforts to save a dying language cannot be made unless it is known and acknowledged to be endangered.
“Why should we care?” is a question on the FAQ section of UNESCO’s website on endangered languages. This is the answer provided: “Every language reflects a unique worldview with its own value systems, philosophy and particular cultural features. The extinction of a language results in the irrecoverable loss of unique cultural knowledge embodied in it for centuries, including historical, spiritual and ecological knowledge that may be essential for the survival of not only its speakers, but also countless others. For speaker communities, languages are the creations and the vectors of tradition. They support cultural identity and are an essential part of a community’s heritage.”
One might argue that this is the way the world is and people should simply accept it. That in the end, fewer languages spoken may result in humanity’s greater understanding of each other. I find this argument extremely flawed simply because it is a human’s natural state to have and show compassion. Humanity is no longer at an age to allow the extinction of any form of life. How can one argue against the right of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” of another community? I am sure no one would argue against the idea of saving their own language after they have faced their own struggles within a larger community. Then they would see how truly unjust it is. Martin Luther King Jr. said it best when he said “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” That is why we should care.
While globalization has undoubtedly caused an increase in productivity for humanity, increasing the population, it at the same time destroys others, decreasing the substance of life. What becomes of life without differences and diversity? Is it beneficial to society as a whole that it becomes so interconnected and integrated to the point that cultural knowledge, perspectives and ideas are lost? Where is the justice for the minorities being culturally, linguistically, and socially oppressed by a more dominant community? When does it end? And what would happen if the whole world burns in the melting pot? There would be but only one window from which mankind will view the world.

Work Cited
“Language Vitality | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.”
UNESCO, Mar. 2003. Web. 17 June 2016.
Boumlik, Habiba. “Berber Film Festival” Laguardia Community College. June 2016. Conference
Presentation.
Cameron, Deborah. “Language: Diversity in Danger.” Critical Quarterly 44.4 (2002): 135-39.
Web.
Dawson, Hannah. “Locke, Language and Early-Modern Philosophy.” 1st ed. Cambridge [U.K.]:
Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print.
Fosnot, Catherine Twomey. “Constructivism.” 2nd Ed. New York: Teachers College Press,
2005. Print.
Jackson, Robert H and Georg Sorensen. “Introduction to International Relations.” 5th Ed.
Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2010. Print.
Language Matters. Dir. David Grubin. Perf. Bob Holman. PBS, 2015. Online.
Martel, James. “Made With Words: Hobbes On Language, Mind, And Politics. By Philip Pettit.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.” Perspectives on Politics 6.02 (2008): 2-4. Web.
Nettle, Daniel, and Suzanne Romaine. “Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s
Languages.” New York: Oxford UP, 2000. Print.
Seyfeddinipur, Mandana. “Endangered Languages: Why it Matters” TED. Nov. 2015. Lecture.