Asymmetry of Language Relations

I’m going to take the time here to discuss an idea that has come as a tangent off the current research that I’m doing into soft power and public diplomacy in China. One of the core assumptions at the heart of the American political theorist Joseph Nye’s concept of soft power is that Italian socialist philosopher Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony must be able to hold true, not only within national borders, but across them as well. While I think we can all see how certain cultural objects, especially ideational things like “democracy” or “market capitalism” can become quickly dominant because of American cultural hegemony, Nye argues that the spread of English around the world is an advantage for America’s hegemony (though how England, Canada and other native English speaking countries benefit is unclear). “If they can think in American English, they can think like an American”, is one of the ideas that Nye promotes in various writings promoting the idea of soft power.

But another American political theorist, Richard Rose, has convincingly argued against this idea in a paper entitled, “Language, Soft Power and Asymmetrical Internet Communication“. The argument is basically that power relations between linguistic groups are often best explained by the question: who understands the other better? The spread of English around the world reduces incentives for Americans to learn other languages, while foreigners are able to better understand America through their learning of English. In the book Charm Offensive, Joshua Kurlantzic notes how while most American diplomats to China arrive relatively unaware of even simple Chinese customs, more than a few Chinese diplomats could give complicated accounts of the internal politics of American political parties. If that’s the case, then the spread of English around the world actually is the result of attempts to challenge American hegemony, by understanding American culture better.

A criticism of Rose’s idea from within Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony might be that when two groups are operating within the discursive frameworks of a “hegemon” language like English, native speakers will possess an advantage from the greater flexibility their advanced knowledge gives them. But I think ultimately, Rose presents a new way that we should look at attempts to promote a nation’s soft power through language. Do Confucius Institutes, Goethe Institutes, Alliance Francaise and the multi-various efforts of the English speaking world actually gain a “power” advantage over those who they train in the language, or do they allow language learners to subvert the power structures within that language?

Empower yourself. Learn a language.

Categories: Student Association