Universal Language ≠ Peace

"If languages are living things, inextricable intertwined with biological diversity, the loss of 'verbal botanies' is irreparable, and a monoglot globe is as unthinkable as a world with only one species of tree, flower, and bird." -Hawken, 96

The chapter in Blessed Unrest titled "Indigene" discusses loss of indigenous cultures and languages through extermination and the great 're-naming' (use of the Linnaean taxonomy). I grew up knowing everything has two names: common and scientific. I was a human but I was also a Home sapian. When I fill out paperwork, I fill the circle beside 'caucasian'. In truth, every object has more than two names; each language has its own way of describing things. Especially people, who Linnaeus broke up into multiple subspecies (or races).

What did this mean for the population of the world? They had their own language, and their own names for themselves and now Europeans were imposing a new system upon them with no consideration. This need to classify, while it may seem orderly and useful, cut out a huge chunk of rich world language. Hawken compares language to a living thing that grows, changes, and dies with the last person who could speak it.

Colonists assumed that native languages were inferior, simply because they could not understand them. Darwin himself said, "Their language does not deserve to be called articulate" (Hawken, 91). However, a study done on the Yámana language showed that they had around 33,000 words, and a way to describe nearly everything.

"Yámana is a language of finesse and subtlety. It has sixty-one words for kin, compared to twenty-five in English. There seems to be a precise word to describe every moment in their life." -Hawken, 92

There is a muted debate in America about a national official language. The debit sliders at most stores have an option for English or Spanish. Customers never realize that if they can read that it says 'select language' it is already in English so they punch at the button and say, "Gosh, wouldn't it be easier if everything was just in English? People who come here should speak our language." I never say anything, and I have grown so tired of hearing this I do not even give them my best service clerk smile. The ignorance that pours from a simple fly off the handle statement like this is sad. Would it be easier if world language were monoglot? Of course, we would understand each other all the time. But would that be that great a thing?

Languages are art. They represent the environment they are formed in. When translating between languages some terms simply just do not translate perfectly, because each language has its own was of describing something. My favorite example is the one Hannah gave in class that Italian's do not have a word for privacy. Simply knowing that says so much about their culture.

The wiping out of cultures and language done by conquistadors and colonialists in the 15th century up until now made extinct, or endangered, half the world's living cultural heritage (Hawken, 94).

"As cultures disappear at the rate of thirty a year, we find ourselves placing our species' cultural eggs in fewer and fewer baskets."

-Hawken, 94

Maybe we could all understand each other better if we just listened to what each person is trying to say, no matter how they say it.

'I am a citizen of the world'

"[Diogenes unseemly behavior was] to get people to question their prejudices by making them consider how difficult it is to give good reasons for many of our deeply held feelings." -Nussbaum, 57

In chapter 2 of Martha Nussbaum's book Cultivating Humanity, she writes about being citizens of the world; what this title entails, and how to achieve it. She begins by writing about Plato, Aristotle, and their unconventional contemporary Diogenes the Cynic. He provoked behavior in people by spitting in their faces, living in poverty, and eating in public (something only dogs did in their culture). The above quote describes his actions as a way of getting people to rethink what they thought was strange and why exactly they felt that way. When asked where he was from, Diogenes told them he was a 'citizen of the world'.

"When we see in how many different ways people can organize their lives we will recognize what is deep and sallow in our own ways... the only real community is one that embraces the entire world."

-Nussbaum, 58

As people age, we all develop a framework for how we view the world. What is right, what is wrong, what is normal or weird. Part of being a world citizen is learning about other cultural norms and broadening ones view of the world. It fosters respect and understanding. Being educated on ethnic differences can curb hate that breeds in ignorance. However, in learning about various peoples of the globe we can start to question ourselves and why we do things they way we do. This raises the question, is this really the best? Maybe that way of doing this is more efficient? World citizenship leads to ethical inquiry that "requires awareness that life contains other possibilities" (Nussbaum, 54). If we are all critical of our own mannerisms and customs, they can stretch and change as we see them more clearly. Nussbaum writes that Stoics held that thinking about humanity as a whole world is valuable for self-knowledge (59). Ancient Greeks examined customs of faraway countries to better understand their way of life and we, as modern and global citizens should do the same.