National Possession: Of Keeping and of Letting Go

Have you ever thought about what your life would be like without your language? What about the fact that your children may not be able to speak your language when you are no longer alive? Our language is considered as our national possession. For this reason, no one would ever allow throw it away but keep it. Nevertheless, if given a situation that the only way to progress and develop were to let it go, most likely, ambivalence would start to creep into every ones’ minds. What then could be the most certainly better choice for this? Would you still keep the national possession or just leave it behind?
I have read an article entitled “Perspectives on the Social and Cultural Impact of English as an International Language” by David McLachlan Jeffrey. The article scrutinizes a variety of opinions and beliefs within the debate on the social and cultural impact of English as an international language (EIL) together with the personal opinions of Jeffrey as the writer. The social and cultural impact of EIL really is a controversy that generates a large number of arguments and debates, especially with regard to whether it has been advantageous or disadvantageous to the colonized countries, and whether this continues to be the case at present with the advent of globalization. Because it is not probable to do full justice to a broad subject in the short space of the paper, the approach is only an attempt to extract from the varied perspectives of theorists, and to limit the focus primarily to the two formerly non-English speaking countries – Nigeria and the Philippines.
The paper can be divided into five major sections. The first section is on the relationship of language, society and culture and the social and cultural impact of EIL. The second section is on the Center-Periphery Debate and the impact of the tendency of EIL to socially and to culturally marginalize. The third section is on the impact of EIL in Globalization. The fourth section concerns on the ownership of English by the non-native speakers of English especially Nigeria and Philippines. Finally, it talks about English Language Teaching (ELT) profession.
The paper begins by examining the relationships between language, society and culture, which is used as a backdrop upon which to extend the debate by including the views of other theorists across the ideological divide concerning the social and cultural impact of EIL. In the first part, Holmes says, “Sociolinguists study the relationship between language and society. They are interested in explaining why we speak differently in different social contexts, and they are concerned with identifying the social functions of language and the ways it is used to convey social meaning.” It is also stated that the reason for sociolinguists not to consistently agree on each other’s views is that this field is a subjective discipline. Moreover, Wardaugh asserts, “Since no cultural requirement are tied to the learning of English, you can learn it and use it without having to subscribe to another set of values….” On the contrary, Phillipson states, “What is at stake when English spreads is not merely the substitution or displacement of one language by another but the imposition of new ‘mental structures’ through English.” Then, these are followed by the definitions of language, society and culture. Language is what the members of a particular society speak. Society is any group of people who are drawn together for a certain purpose or purposes. Culture is those tools, practices, assumptions, and behavioral patterns that members of a group use to communicate with one another and to demarcate themselves from other groups. It is mainly about social identity, and communication, and, as Podur notes, is an important part of that select identity. Therefore, language, society and culture are very much interrelated and linked to each other. They are inseparable, so to speak. What then is the social and cultural impact of EIL? Basically, what the article says in this part is that it is repressive and that it imposes ‘mental structures’ (Western Ideologies). It can substitute not only people’s language but also their culture because, as Phillipson points out, “English learning and culture are inseparable, and the imposition of Western ways of thinking (‘modernization’ and ‘nation building’) are ‘a logical process of ELT’, in the same way that economic inequality, sustained by EIL through ELT, was a logical process of colonization, in order to keep the poor nations economically poor, mentally subdued, and hence easily exploitable.”
In the second section, because EIL is oppressive, it makes a core-periphery that those in the center refer to the native-English speakers and the periphery refers to the non-native-English speakers. Thus, Kachru conceptualizes three concentric circles of global English use: an inner-circle (the native-English speaking countries), an outer-circle (countries that speak English as an additional language) and an expanding-circle (countries that need English for international communication). He concludes that the relationship reflects and unbalanced and harmful state of power and influence on the societies and cultures to which English spreads. As a result, EIL culturally and socially marginalizes “the others”. Abbot states, “The widely perceived need to promote technological development through teaching an international language such as English overshadows an arguably more basic need to transmit indigenous cultures.” Freire, then believes in ‘cultural invasion’ as he says, “…the invaders penetrate the control context of another group and, ignoring the potential of the latter,…impose their own view of the world upon those they invade and inhibit the creativity of the invaded by curbing their expression.” Here, therefore, various aspects of EIL are discussed, such as its center-periphery dimensions, its propensity to marginalize other languages and cultures.
The third part concerns with the impact of globalization (including advances in communications technology). It is defined in this section that Globalization affords certain underdeveloped countries the opportunity to skip certain traditional stages of economic growth, and catch up rapidly with developed countries, especially those underdeveloped countries that now speak English as a second language. Well, although the word globalization suggests a comprehensive and self-evident process, it is an incomplete term. It does not indicate precisely what is being globalized – the assumption is that it means the emergence of a single worldwide economy, into which all economies must integrate themselves. However, globalization does not considerately halt at some ill-defined frontier between economics, society and culture. Indeed, it has its own set of cultural attendants, which exercise a profound influence on the life of peoples everywhere. By definition, globalization makes all other cultures local. Nevertheless, to billions of people all over the world, their culture is not local. It is central to their lives and who they are. Globalization eclipses, or at least subordinates all previous ways of answering need and of dealing with the vicissitudes of human life. All other ways of life are diminished and marginalized at a stroke.
Fourth, the ownership of English by non-native speakers is considered an important turning point in the evolution of EIL, and examples of where this happened in Nigeria and the Philippines are used to illustrate this. English is currently regarded as the world’s principal international language. As a result, there are now more exchanges between non-native speakers of English than between non-native speakers and native speakers. Thus, it could be fair to say that English no longer belongs to any particular group of people, and that they are no longer mere consumers of the Western-Anglo-Saxon tradition. Kachru, despite his predominant focus on the unbalanced center-periphery relationship, admitted that ‘for the first time a natural language has attained the status of an international (universal) language’. He also saw English as being very adaptable and thus capable of sustaining a large assortment of functions. Hence, it seems that this phenomenon of EIL, the adoption and ownership of English by formally non-English speaking societies, is a major switch in the role of EIL from its former repressive role, to one that offers possibilities for EIL being used in a liberating sense. In Nigeria and in the Philippines, although, this was repressive to them before but now, English becomes an instrument of social, cultural and economic emancipation to some extent. English, therefore, in these countries seems to have a tendency to no longer be viewed as something imposed from the outside, but as something belonging to, and becoming an intrinsic part of the national culture.
Finally, the main conclusions reached in the paper are drawn together and highlighted, together with their implications for the English language teaching (ELT) profession. It concluded that professionals should also endeavor to persuade their students (1) to communicate matters that are important to their lives; (2) how to confidently and effectively communicate their concerns, cultural viewpoints and personal interests by taking ownership of English; (3) using it as a meaningful interchange with people of other countries; and (4) to relate what it means to be a member of their specific societies and cultures in a positive way to others in the world community.
As a reaction, I would like to begin with a belief, or let us say a fact, that technology has now created the possibility and even the likelihood of a global culture. The Internet, fax machines, satellites, and cable TV are sweeping away cultural boundaries. Global entertainment companies shape the perceptions and dreams of ordinary citizens, wherever they live. This spread of values, norms, and culture tends to promote Western ideals of capitalism. Will local cultures inevitably fall victim to this global “consumer” culture? Will English eradicate all other languages? Will consumer values overpower peoples’ sense of community and social solidarity? Alternatively, on the contrary, will a common culture lead the way to greater shared values and political unity?
The world is getting smaller and smaller in the sense that people from different sides of the world would know, interact, communicate and argue with each other without meeting in person, and that is with the advancement of technology. Technology has bombarded us with information so vast. With just one click of the mouse, everything you need is right there and then, in front of you. What else could you ask for? But wait, the language of science, technology and this “globalization” is no other than English. In fact, it is considered as the International Language.
Now, as an International Language, is it advantageous or disadvantageous to other countries? In the negative side, it is disadvantageous because it represses and suppresses not only the language but also the cultures and traditions of other countries. How come? It is because language, society and culture are interrelated and interconnected with each other. It is so difficult to separate one from the other. Once English is learned, the western social life, culture and tradition are also learned because “language and culture circumscribe with each other”. What then? Of course, the language of the ones who learn English would gradually die and eventually, their culture, tradition and “homogeneous” social life would eventually be left behind. The first possession to be rejected, therefore, is the language and then it would be followed by the culture and tradition. Eventually, nothing of the National Possession is left for the ones who speak English, which formerly do not. This really is pathetic because what would you give to your children? To the next generations? What could they possess originally from their own nation? What then could be their identity? National identity? Cultural identity? How then can they be defined when they have lost their national and cultural identity? Losing our language, culture and tradition, is also losing our real identity. This, I believe is the main reason of the disadvantage of English as an International Language. In addition, English does not only repress other people’s language and culture but also even sets a standard (or imposes their ‘mental structures’, their western ideologies, their western hegemony) that what is theirs is correct, standard, and quality Thus, placing themselves in the center or core of “the circle”. They have made a center-periphery that they belong to the inner core or to the center for they are the pattern to follow. Those who are non-native speakers are then belonging to the periphery or to the outer core because they are just imitators of the center. Then, the ones who need English or who don’t have English yet belong to the outermost part of the circle. See how much they manipulated people’s minds? As a result, here in the Philippines, we always believe that what is English or American is “cool” and what is local or ours is “cheap”. We do not buy things if we see “Made in the Philippines” because if we do, we will be mocked and rebuked by our friends. Therefore, we would buy those that are “Made in U.S.A.” or “Made in London”. Who will become rich then? Of course, the western people! Another thing, those who speak English well or at least can communicate in English is considered to be educated, well-tutored, intelligent, bright and even rich. This, therefore, sets a social hierarchy that those who can speak English are better than the ones who can only speak Sebuano or Tagalog or Ilocano. This definitely divides the people socially and the basis for this separation is not really ours, it is something imposed from the western people and that is their very own language, English. Because of this, many Filipinos endeavor to learn to speak and write English and those who already know, try hard to sound like, look like and act like really American in nature. If this is the case, what happens now to our language for it will no longer be used so that they will not be considered cheap? Eventually, our very own Philippine Languages would die. Language dies when no one is using it anymore. Now, who would prefer to use our dialect or our Sebuano Language? Gradually, our languages her in the Philippines are all dying. In fact, some have died already because the native-speakers take no pride for their language. They would be ashamed to speak their mother-tongue. What follows after learning the English language? The Western social way of living, culture and tradition. I cannot deny the fact that if one speaks English; he/she would feel like really American. He/she would even try his/her best to sound like American English and that he would act and dress like one. Today, who would see Filipino Youth wearing barong tagalong, Kamesa de Tsino, Maria Clara Suit, bahag, sarong or any native wardrobe? I bet you could hardly point one. Almost all youth in our country are wearing as the Americans do. In addition, who still practices harana and mano po? Again, you could hardly point one because almost all youth are doing what the Americans do like going home late in the evening, kissing in front of the public, holding hands, and just going in and out of the house without telling their parents. My point here is that gradually, our Philippine languages, cultures, traditions and social lives are diminishing and dying; and before we knew it, we have totally lost them. What then is left to us? to our next generations? What then could be our Filipino or National Identity when we have lost it already? This is the negative side of the social and cultural impact of English as an International Language. Therefore, to keep our national possession is very much logical, emotional, patriotic and heroic.
Again, let me stress that the language of science, technology and “globalization” is English. Thus, only those who can communicate and interact using English are only those whose countries will develop, progress and flourish. Let us say we have with us all the national possession of the Philippines with the languages, cultures and traditions. With all these possessions in our hands, do you think we will ever prosper or progress amidst all the technologies and advances with the English language? I bet not! Now, will you let go of your national possession for our national development and progress? Will you let our languages, cultures and traditions die all in the name of prosperity, global competition, economic growth and advancements in technologies? What are we going to benefit from keeping our national possession and remain poor, undeveloped, third world and in scarcity? Come on, let us face the fact, the truth, the reality and let us all be practical. All of us want to prosper, progress and become economically stable. Moreover, what is the way? What to do? It may be heart-breaking but we really have to sacrifice something and that would be our national possession. For me, I am ready to let go of my language, culture and tradition. We can do nothing but let go of it. We have to go with the tide of science and technology and the advent of globalization. We have to because the language of science and technology is English. How can we become globally competitive if we do not speak English? How can we develop without the advancement and use of technologies with English. Even not for the sake of development, in the first place, the fact that we all have our cultures and languages with us indicates that we are divided and separated for we can never be unified with all our varied beliefs. How can we understand each other and have peace when we cannot communicate because we do not understand the other Philippine Language because there are so many? I mean, what is the point of keeping something that divides us. The kernel rationale why there is war is that we have varied and different beliefs, traditions, cultures, languages, gods, opinions, theories, characters, etc. How can we ever be unified and attain peace if in the first place, we are not one in our stand. If we insist in combing two cultures, even more, it would result into anxieties, doubts, confusions and divisions. So why not let go of what we have now and embrace only one language, culture and tradition. With one language, one culture, one tradition and one belief, we all will become one to achieve peace. In addition to peace that we can gain, we can also make our country globally competitive, technologically advance, nationally developed and economically stable. Hence, our society, culture, economy and tradition would all be unified and become globally competitive with the use of English. In relevance to, it is disingenuous to assume that economy, society and culture operate in separate spheres. If one among these would flourish, the others would come in and follow. Indeed, the way in which geographical entities are now designated shows the increasing porosity of these notions. An advanced economy, an industrialized nation, a mature economy are set against a developing country, an emerging market, a liberalizing society. The terms are almost interchangeable. This suggests that, once exposed to the globalizing imperative, no aspect of social life, customary practice, traditional behavior will remain the same.
I am not saying that to keep what we have is not that good. In fact, it is moral, emotional, logical and patriotic; but nowadays, we have to face the reality and be practical that we all are struggling for development because we have suffered poverty long enough. We already know the way and that is to embrace, adopt, adapt and adept the English Language. However, as we are doing it, something is left behind, neglected, forsaken and ditched – our National Possession. This is agonizing. Eventually, our languages, cultures and traditions will all die yet nevertheless, in return, Philippines becomes globally competitive, technologically advanced and industrialized nation! Really, something has to die so that something will sprout, grow and flourish (just like resurrection). Therefore, should and must we keep it or let go of it? Will you keep the national possession and remain miserable? Or, will you let go of our languages, cultures and traditions to make Philippines a developed, prosperous, progressive and most of all, globally competitive?