Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 01:23:13 +0000 From: James Heartfield <James-AT-heartfield.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: M-TH: Cultural hegemony In message <v03102800b12b800b66e1-AT-[128.146.227.193]>, Yoshie Furuhashi <Furuhashi.1-AT-osu.edu> writes >I think that the linguistic hegemony of English (and cultural hegemony of >CNN) is not only to be recognized but also to be questioned and resisted. >For instance, even though English has become a public medium of choice in >business, science, and politics, the majority of the working-class people >in the world, I think, neither speak nor write in this language. So it >means that when one sees signs in English or hears comments taken from >English-speaking people in the world on CNN, one must think about possible >class biases of those who have had access to the level of education that >made it possible for them to express political views in English as Second >Language. And such views may not be widely shared by those who speak and >write only in their own native tongues. I think Yoshie has a point in that the various national bourgeoisies are often better at internationalising their outlook (albeit superficially) than working classes are. To take the example of Britain, often the educated classes have a European outlook, that might embrace regular foreign travel, a smattering of a European language (granted that teh English always rely on others' English), and a familiarity with European political institutions. If English is become the Lingua Franca, that reflects the dominance of first the British and now the American ruling classes over the years. But I am not sure if it reflects any continuing British authority in the world which seems to be greatly diminished. Indeed the British ruling classes cling rather pathetically to the enduring authority of the English (now actually American) language as a compensatory factor against their relative decline. This is why Britain is so biassed towards cultural production, selling pop music and literature: it is an attempt to offset its industrial decline by capitalising on the advantage offered by the hegemony of the English language. This might just be laziness, or even some national chauvinism on my part, but I still think that the left is stuck with the English language as the preferred language of international solidarity, not for any intrinsic reasons, but because of the pragmatic reasons of widest communication. However, maybe I'm wrong. If you abstracted from the wealth of the collective of English speakers, perhaps Spanish or Chinese would be the preferred language of internationalism (assuming that Esperanto is a dead letter). -- James Heartfield --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005