My wife and I were on our way to the local commemoration of the Martyrdom of the Bab and were listening to the Jim and Margery show on talk radio. It seems that a certain political figure caused a stir by recently making remarks about language. He made two basic arguments. First that while there is not a need for a law designating English as the national language in the United States, immigrants to the U.S. should learn the English language. The second point was that those of us who live in the U.S. should follow the example of Europeans and be more multilingual than we currently are. He made a particular point about making sure that our children learn Spanish. The hosts of this show started to debate each other about what this politician had said. On one side was there was the argument that having everyone speak English is important because it promotes national unity and that countries that officially promote bilingualism have not been successful. On the other side was the argument that the lack of more multilingualism in the United States represented a kind of ethnocentric arrogance. The points being made during this show were pretty typical of the wider debate going on in the United States about "English only" versus varying degrees of multilingualism. What I did not hear (and rarely do) is the idea that human beings being able to communicate with each other represents a spiritual imperative with at least one practical implication, the development of a world language. Baha'u'llah, the Founder of the Baha'i Faith had this to say about this issue:
"It beseemeth you and the other officials of the Government to convene a gathering and choose one of the divers languages, and likewise one of the existing scripts, or else to create a new language and a new script to be taught children in schools throughout the world. They would, in this way, be acquiring only two languages, one their own native tongue, the other the language in which all the peoples of the world would converse. Were men to take fast hold on that which hath been mentioned, the whole earth would come to be regarded as one country, and the people would be relieved and freed from the necessity of acquiring and teaching different languages."
(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 137)
"From the beginning of time the light of unity hath shed its divine radiance upon the world, and the greatest means for the promotion of that unity is for the peoples of the world to understand one another's writing and speech."
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 127)
"The day is approaching when all the peoples of the world will have adopted one universal language and one common script. When this is achieved, to whatsoever city a man may journey, it shall be as if he were entering his own home. These things are obligatory and absolutely essential. It is incumbent upon every man of insight and understanding to strive to translate that which hath been written into reality and action."
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 165)
It seems to me that the heart of the matter as far as diversity of languages in the United States or elsewhere is that human beings need to be able to communicate with each other. Such communication is a necessity if we are to be able to live and work together. It is also a necessity if we are to deepen the bonds of love and unity among us. A world language is a practical means of facilitating more effective communication among the peoples of the Earth. It would be nice to see this possibility being seriously considered by more people as we struggle together to create a world that better reflects the reality that we all "dwell in one world and have been created through the operation of one will."
Hi Phillipe,
ReplyDeleteI didn't get to attend any of the Martyrdom of the Ba'b commemorations today because of the weather conditions here in Northern California--triple digit temperatures and smoke from the wild fires had me inside all day. But prayers, definitely prayers, in remembrance of the Beloved Herald and Manifestation of this Holy Dispensation.
I live in a mini-version of the U.N. Most of my neighbors are Russian, although there is a sizable amount of Hispanic and South-East Asians as well as African Americans living in my complex. For the most part, every one goes about their business with just a nod of the head and a smile.
Language is definitely a barrier as well as culture. I thought I was pretty open-minded before I moved here (ha,ha), but I found myself becoming slightly annoyed with trivial matters such as personal space--people from other countries seem to violate American's sense of personal boundaries by walking too close, or brushing up against someone. How would they know? Furthermore, their grasp of English is scant at best, so there's no way to tell them, "Hey, don't walk up on me like that! We don't do that here!"
It's amusing to me that as a Baha'i I would react like that. I should know better. But knowing is so different from doing. And doing is what Baha'u'llah asks us to do--be patient, loving, and look for ways to come together. Until I moved in this apartment complex, I didn't realize what overwhelmingly complex task we have been asked to perform.
But we can do it. It's not easy, and like anything worthwhile, it's a test of spiritual strength. I try to remember that when I smile at my neighbors and say "Buenos Dias" or "Das Adanye" (I have no idea how to spell that Russian greeting. But my neighbors smile when I say it.)
Thanks for the excellent blogs. Please visit my site; I have a bit of request for you! :)
I'd be interested to know whether you have considered Esperanto as the international auxiliary language?
ReplyDeleteTake a look at www.esperanto.net
What do you think?
Angela, always nice to hear from you. You've shared a nice illustration of the difficulties that can arise we people are not able to communicate with each other. It can contribute to a feeling of alienation which is so antithetical to unity.
ReplyDeleteBob, you've made an interesting point. To the best of my knowledge, Baha'is have been involved to some to degree with the Esperanto movement since it's beginnings. Whether the Baha'i Faith officially advocates the selection of Esperanto as a world language, I'm not sure. I have not heard as such. Thanks for sharing that link with the readers of this blog.
Baha'u'llah's instructions on choosing an International language is that it be done democratically by the governments. As such there is no position by the Baha'i Faith as an organization on what language to choose. That's up to whatever process is created by the nations to choose it.
ReplyDeleteOn this topic, I remember hearing once that there was a letter by Baha'u'llah where he says that he has a language we can use and if someone would ask him for it, he would describe it. No one asked.
Anyone know anything about that? Not that it's useful to speculate.
As to Esperanto, I don't know it, but from what I understand it's firmly in the Indo-European language family and as such would provide a bias towards other Indo-European speakers in learning it. My personal preference from among existing languages is Swahili. Like English it's a mature creole and good at adopting new words and concepts. And, like English it doesn't have 'genders', making it easier to learn than other Bantu languages or other languages with 'genders'. And unlike English it has a normalized spelling, "elegant" in the jargon of linguists.
The pros of choosing English include the millions of trained ESL teachers and that it's already used in many academic circles as a lingua franca. The cons are the spelling system, and the privilege it would confer on an already privileged community: native English speakers. The converse of that last point from my point of view is that it would deprive me of the opportunity to learn a new language that would hold a special place in human culture, and deprive me of having a distinct 'patios' or private home language in contrast with a public international language.
It sure would be beautiful to be able to walk down the street of New York or Beijing and feel like you could easily communicate with EVERYONE!
On a slightly different subject, when we (the people of the world) DO choose this language, it will take years for people to be able to start using it. First we'll have to train the teacher trainers, then train the teachers, then the teachers can finally teach people. HA!! Ruhi book 87a "Introduction the the new International Auxiliary Language"!
-Jeff
Jeff, thanks for drawing attention the process by which a world language would be chosen as well as the practical elements. This seems to be a topic you know a lot about. Swahili is an interesting choice, I heard someone suggest once that Arabic might also be a good choice. English does seem to be serving this role at this time reflecting the dynamics of global commerce rather than any kind of linguistic imperialism. Yes it will be a wonderful day when people are able to communicate with everyone regardless of nationality.
ReplyDeleteI, recently, saw on CNN that several states in US did, in fact, come out and say, "we are an English-only state". I strongly disagree with this. We need to be a multi-lingual country, period, end of story. Our very existence and survival depends on us collaborating and cooperating with other countries. How can the States come out and speak against the fanaticism from Islamic countries, while the States are fanatic about English-only? Nationalism can never be a positive thing. We need to make connections with others...if, we don't we become mentally ill--xenophobic and we become slaves to misunderstanding.
ReplyDeleteGrady
Two things:
ReplyDeleteFirst, the state of New Mexico is officially bilingual.
Second, I just started a children's class, and we were trying to decide whether to do it in english, bilingually, or to have two classes. We decided to do it bilingually, despite being more work. There is a cultural divide, of which the language barrier has become symbolic, and we decided that the most important thing is to build unity. After all we did tell the kids:
"So Powerful is the light of Unity that it can illumine the whole earth."
Grady thanks for sharing your thoughts. The English only vs. multilingualism debate is interesting. I'm curious though how you imagine multilingualism working in practice. Is it simply that people speak English and a second language, multiple languages or what?
ReplyDeleteJalal, thanks for sharing the experience of your class, it sounds like you have figured out something that works for you.
One thing that hit me a few years ago was realising that when Baha'u'llah gave the principle of a Universal AUXILLARY language that He was not just suggesting one universal language, but that this principle honors and values the preservation of linguistic diversity. I feel the balance between unity and diversity on this principle tends to lean immoderately towards the unity side of the dynamic in Baha'i discussions I have experienced.(I'm not referring to the current one.) I have come to feel that it is very important to cherish linguistic diversity as a principle of Baha'u'llah's revelation. Social scientists have demonstrated that the loss of cultural, and some argue biological, diversity is strongly linked to the loss of native language through education that only focuses on a dominant language, usually English. For example see the excellent work of Skutnab-Kangas, Tove. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education—or world-wide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. And regarding the linking of language and and the preservation of biocultural diversity see Maffi, Lusia (Ed.). (2001). On biocultural diversity: Linking language, knowledge, and the environment. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely love the idea of being able to speak with all peoples of the earth, but that joy is embedded in the hope that they can translate the richness of their cultural heritage and knowledge of the local. I believe that knowledge can only be fully preserved in an active maintenance of native language formed to describe those local relationships. The universal language will enable an apprehension of those rich and diverse gifts but cannot replace it as a sufficent descriptor of the infinitely diverse local lives it seeks to connect to.