Stephen van Vlack
Sookmyung Women`s University
Division of English Language and Literature
English in the Era of Globalization
Fall 2007
Week 14 - Answers
Sonntag (2003) Chapter 6
1. There seems to be a correlation between global integration and the local politics of global English. Explain the nature of this correlation in the countries we studied.
The basic idea here, and this has panned out in the different case studies that we have looked at in this book, is that the more globalized a country is (the more integrated it is into the global community) the more concerned this society is going to be about linguistic globalization. At the extreme and we saw examples of this in both the United States and France. Both of these countries are extremely globalized, the United States actually being the figurehead for globalization, and in both of them there is an extreme concern for linguistic globalization. Interestingly, in both countries this concern takes two totally different directions. In France they are greatly concerned about the intrusion of English on a zone of French hegemony, while in the United States they are concerned about retaining English hegemony within the borders. In South Africa and India which are marginally globalized countries there seems to be a mixed reaction. Some people are still embracing the idea of English while others are starting to resist the intrusion of English onto linguistic minorities. In Nepal, a highly marginalized country in terms of globalization, there seems to be a wholly rosy outlook as regards global English and the role that English can play in developing Nepalese society.
Since, to a certain extent at least, we can equate globalization with economic development these results should not at all be shocking. The more developed a country is the more time its people have to worry about linguistic issues. This tells us that linguistic issues really are a luxury. With the tremendous push of globalization over the last few hundred years or so many local languages have come under threat and have either died or are in eminent danger of dying. Often, people don`t realize the threat until it is to late. For us, we need to think about how Korea fits into the basic correlation. Korea would seem to be well on its way to becoming a fully integrated society as regards globalization. We may not be there yet but we certainly are moving swiftly in that direction. Based on this general trend we could then possibly predict that serious linguistic issues related to English hegemony are just around the corner.
2. What are the different groups that affect global English in local communities and how do they do so?
The three main groups that affect global English in local communities are the state, the elites, and of course the subalterns. We have already mentioned in this course, and it bears repeating, that in Korea it is obviously the case that the state (the government) plays and extremely important role in the process of globalization and this includes of course linguistic globalization. As regards linguistic globalization, in particular, it should be crystal clear as well that it leaks also play an increasingly important role. What we have yet to see in Korean local politics is the rise of the subalterns. When we think about language issues in the country who controls what goes on? The answer is obviously the elites, the parents of elite children who loudly proclaim their rights to particular education issues, the most important of which is currently English, and in doing so really control politics. The government finds itself pray to the whims of the elites. We`ve seen several times that the government has tried to limit certain aspects of extracurricular education only to be forced into repealing the law. The elites pretty much get what they want. This is pretty much the same everywhere.
Based on this distinction we can identify globalization from above (which includes a globalization directed from both the state and the elites) as well as a globalization from below (which is obviously a globalization pushed for by the subalterns). Much of what we see as a problem related to globalization is that it often and most generally is pushed from above. Subalterns, on rare occasions, do appropriate the globalization processes and even the code of globalization (English) as a way of opposing the top-down force of globalization, but this is rare. There is an inherent conflict in this.
3. Why is globalization, both economic and linguistic, such a political issue?
Globalization is a political issue because it revolves around power and access to resources. This is the access to resources both from the top-down perspective (access to global markets and global natural resources) as well as the bottom-up aspect (access to national wealth and jobs). From this we can see that there is an inherent in conflict not only between to the top down and the bottom up aspects of globalization, but between nations. To a certain extent globalization is a laissez-faire/survival of the fittest type of system. Different countries or companies are competing against each other for increasingly scarce resources and markets. The basic idea of globalization from above is that everybody should have free access to every thing. In this view, all the players on the global market are inherently equal. But the problem is that really not all countries are equal.
Certainly more developed countries are going to be more equal than less-developed countries. They will have both capital and know-how to be able to function in a more global world. This is main reasons why globalization is such a political issue internationally. Smaller, less developed countries feel overwhelmed by this globalization. They don`t necessarily have the capital or experience to lead globalization so they wind up becoming pawns, providing both resources and markets for more established global players. So in effect, these smaller less developed countries give global powerhouses the materials to make goods and then the goods are even made there (cheaply) and sold there (not so cheaply). The global company walks off with all the money leaving just a small amount behind for local developing populations to use to buy globally manufactured goods. It really sounds like a dream come true for the global powerhouses, but somewhat exploitive for developing countries. This is why it is a political issue. Globalization is not necessarily fair in the short-term.
The view is that in the long-term globalization will foster a more development and more equal development across the world. But of course, and most unfortunately, even if the rosy view is to occur long-term this is going to take time. In the meantime people have to put up with increasingly large discrepancies between rich regions and poor regions in the world. There is inevitable political fallout both in the rich end poor regions relating to national policies on tariffs and other protectionist measures. Some countries feel they need a buffer to globalization. Governments want to control the rate or specific aspects of globalization so that their countries can be more stable, for globalization isn`t only about economics. Globalization is also about information. People in poor countries now have much more access to information about rich countries and are now much more fully aware all of the actual differences between their lives and the lives of people in richer places. Such realizations are often a seed for the massive discontent, and a cause of political fervor. To survive governments need to somehow show their people that they are doing something to help them or to diminish this tremendous imbalance.
From the bottom-up perspective we have a similar type of struggle evolving, but this struggle is not between nations but between peoples within nations. One important thing we saw in this course (in looking at different countries and the different linguistic makeup of different countries) is that most countries are extremely diverse in their ethnic and/or linguistic makeup. This of course we would not necessarily be a problem if all languages and cultures were seen as being equal, but of course we know that they are not. Some languages are much more equal than other languages. English is the most `equal` language in the world today. In countries which are more globalized (which have a greater need and use for English) English is going to play a more important and an overall wider role in the society. Within that local society people will need to use English more in order to have access to local opportunities. We certainly see this happening in Korea, as are most familiar example. This, of course, causes conflict. More and more people begin to learn English, often at the expense of their own local languages. As more people abandon their local language to learn English, English becomes more equal while local languages become much less equal. Again, we see this happening in Korea right now. Eventually, when enough people shift from one language to the other, conflict breaks out (as we see in Breton).
4. How can the adage `think globally - act locally` be used to help us in Korea in the future?
This adage is an extremely important and powerful one and really needs to be used in order to counteract some of the tremendous conflict not only between nations and globalization but to possibly counteract the hash forces of globalization imposed from above. The adage would seem to indicate that we need to take some of the ideas of globalization and use them effectively by and for ourselves. Globalization shouldn`t be something that we allow to happen to us. It needs to be something that we embrace and use on a daily basis, ourselves to make our lives better. The global ideal, much like the multilingual ideal, enables one to think different and act differently. The adage is a call to action using this new found global strength. As citizens of the world, we need to act ourselves. Globalization not from the top, but from the bottom (from regular people) is the type of globalization which will save our world and not destroy it and that is really what this adage is all about.
There are two different sides to this adage which we need to embrace. The first of these is that we need to take global knowledge (knowledge of the world and how different systems function in the world) and apply them (when and where appropriate) to our local situation. What this really refers to is simply using more creative problem-solving techniques, rather than relying exclusively on a specific and extremely limited set of local traditions and practices. The adage says, don`t just know about the world but use that knowledge to help your own local situation. From the other side we also need to think about how our local actions also affect the world in general. In a world where we now fully understand that everything is deeply interconnected, not just ecologically but also economically and socially, we must not just hold that knowledge but fully embrace the idea that our local actions have global repercussions. On this view, dropping a dirty paper cup on the ground on the Sookdae campus may very well affect a person in, for example, Tanzania because your cup may wind up in their backyard someday. Alternatively that same cup may ultimately affect a Tanzanian because in the future maybe that person will need to actually come here and pick your damn cup up for you which was made from wood pulp cut from threes that used to be in their backyard. That is globalization.