"The English Language and Freedom"

Paul Johnson, in his very interesting article called "The English Language and Freedom" on Forbes, argues that the English language is the language of freedom, democracy and progress, and that nations who are not embracing the English language are doomed to fall behind those who do. For instance, he argues that China is not making any effort to spread the English language and very few mainland Chinese people speak English. By not speaking English, Chinese people do not have "any conception of the liberal tradition that the language enshrines." The Chinese government is striving to spread the Chinese traditions, language and culture in other places such as Africa, and is distancing itself from the advanced Western traditions and English language, Johnson claims. Thus, China is doomed to stagnate because it does not make any effort to learn the English language and embrace its ideals, such as the liberal tradition.

Johnson goes on to contrast China with India, because today most Indian people are learning English, giving them the key "to all the vast intellectual wealth, which all the wisest nations of the Earth have created and hoarded in the course of 90 generations." Johnson argues that India will soon surpass China, and the primary reason for Indian dominance will be India's close relationship with the English language.

I find Johnson's argument very difficult and fallacious to believe. First, claiming that English is the language of democracy, liberal tradition and freedom is far-fetched, as these ideals were first born in France - a French-speaking population. The ideals of "liberté, égalité, fraternité" were born in French, so if we have to find a language that embraces such ideals more than other languages, then it must be French, and not English.

Still, it is arguable whether embracing a certain language or not can determine the future of a country. In the article, Johnson argues that India is becoming a more advanced and democratic country because Indian people are learning English, while China is doomed to fall behind and become unable to follow liberal and democratic ideals since it promotes the Chinese language and culture instead of English and Western ideals. Today, Chinese language is one of the most dominant languages in the world, and the number of people who learn and can speak the language, especially Mandarin, is increasing every day. China is steadily rising as a global power, and Chinese culture, especially Chinese food, has many fans all around the world. I am not championing Chinese culture or language, but I disagree with the notion that promoting their own language instead of English language makes them disadvantageous in any capacity.

Even if one argues that China is falling behind in terms of democracy and liberal ideals, the reason is not likely to be their promotion of Chinese culture instead of Western ideals. Even if that is the case, there must be other reasons, such as the governmental structure or the ideas of the society.

Johnson's argument also brings up another point. English language embodies democratic and liberal ideals whereas other languages, such as Chinese language, does not. This is why China will fall behind unless it starts embracing the English language. What is implicit in this argument, from how I understand it, is that languages are static entities, and they never change. I disagree, because over centuries people have always shaped their language, added new words or phrases to communicate better or to express a certain idea. If China wants to embrace democratic and liberal ideals, the government and the society can make their own language embrace such ideals as well. Languages do not develop on their own - it is the people who construct, shape, use and destroy the language.

Link to article: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0607/opinions-paul-johnson-current-events-english-language.html