Why Esperanto Supports Language Diversity

Why Esperanto Supports Language Diversity

By Martin Minich

(In response to Christopher “Kriĉjo” Culver’s essay Why Esperanto Suppresses Language Diversity: Thoughts on Leaving the Esperanto Movement www.christopherculver.com/en/writings/esperanto.php)

Esperanto is essential to language diversity!

“Esperantists are so concerned with the notion of equality in communication that Esperanto is made mandatory and there is no space for the sharing of national languages” (C. Culver).

Culver makes it seem that language equality and language diversity are opposed to one another—in his opinion Esperanto-speakers are concerned with language equality instead of language diversity. He evens makes the assertion that there is a contradiction between points five (that the Esperanto movement is a movement for language rights) and six (that the Esperanto movement is a movement for language diversity) of the Prague Manifesto (www.uea.org/info/angle/an_manifesto_prago.html ), while I see none: Due to the existence of Esperanto, language diversity can flourish and not be a barrier to universal understanding, because Esperanto will insure the latter in a non-discriminatory, inexpensive and high-quality manner (Incredible as it may sound, it is nevertheless so: Esperanto is to the field of communication what a new technology is to a given industry).

It is not possible for language and cultural diversity to flourish without the actual conditions of language and cultural equality. It is not possible to preserve various languages and maintain harmonious coexistence between them in an environment where speakers of certain languages are disadvantaged in comparison to speakers of others, or if those speakers are judged on the basis of their level of fluency in the dominant language(s), etc.

Esperanto-speakers are concerned with actual language equality (that is neither “only” nor “instead of”)—that is a fundamental condition for language diversity. The emphasis is on the word actual: although people outside of the Esperanto community are hardly aware of this fact, language equality is a practically existing and experienced reality, and not some theoretical ideal only discussed and strived after.

Due to Esperanto there is no room left for national languages? Again, the opposite is true! If someone is required to learn a dominant national language in school, that demands so much time and effort (often with inadequate results, as I observed in my experience as a teacher!) that there is no time left to teach, for example, a minority language to members of a language majority. Acquiring fluency in Esperanto requires only a fraction of the time, therefore it actually does leave room for other languages (many also say that prior knowledge of Esperanto even facilitates the learning of other languages, but others deny this, and I cannot offer any conclusive evidence—that is why I refer to this only parenthetically).

Esperanto-speakers propose the use of Esperanto in international communication not because they think their language is more culturally valuable than others, but rather because they think it is more suitable from a technical standpoint and easily accessible to everyone, unlike national languages. Most likely, the fact that Christopher Culver has an uncommon talent for languages (and an unusually large amount of leisure time—translator’s note) is the reason he overlooks this essential point.

Esperanto culture—through different eyes

Congresses (conventions) are among the few occasions when people can practice Esperanto face-to-face with speakers of other languages. This is how Culver views congresses:

“The Wasted Opportunity of Congresses. Esperanto congresses are often presented as an ideal way to visit a foreign country and learn about its culture. However, in sheltering them entirely from the local language, congresses give participants no true contact with the host country” (C. Culver).

However the World Esperanto Association’s official webpage presents a rather different attitude to local languages than that suggested by Culver:

“The sole working language of the Congress is Esperanto and all communication with the participants is in this language. . . Our delegates usually do not appreciate being approached or helped in English or other languages than the local vernacular and Esperanto” (document of World Congresses for non-Esperanto-speaking partners, www.uea.org/info/angle/an_kongreso.html; emphasis added by M. Minich).

It’s natural that we should use Esperanto as our only working language for the congress: as we propose Esperanto as a language solution in international relations, we would be hypocrites if we did otherwise. For dealing with work-related matters we need an efficient means of communication, a language clearly understood by everyone.

Esperanto-speakers mainly use Esperanto for international communication not to suppress national languages, but simply because it is the means of communication that works best.

However, what one does in one’s free time during private get-togethers is another matter altogether. It seems that the Esperanto community of Culver’s (former) experience and the Esperanto community of my (ongoing) experience are two entirely different worlds (or spheres of culture, if you prefer). At least the picture Culver paints for English-speaking readers is quite different from my actual experience.

“The World Congress is part of the Esperanto community. The World Congress took place in Croatia. While I was there I was able to feel both of these ‘countries’. . . . Previously I thought that the World Congress would be a week during which I would speak only Esperanto. I was wrong. I spoke every imaginable language that I know (besides Slovak), and even some I don’t know yet. However I felt that this was not at all a bad thing.” (Martin Minich: “My World Congress and Surroundings”, Slovakian Esperantist 2-3/2001, p. 12, ISSN 1335-503 [in Esperanto]).

I wrote that following my first World Congress—spontaneously and in no way motivated to write specifically about “language diversity”. As a testimony to the fact that congress participants are indeed interested in the local language(s) will serve the Chinese conversation booklets sold during the Congress in Gothenburg (Sweden), i.e. one year prior to the World Congress in Beijing; as well as the book Lithuanian through Esperanto Eyes by Marc Van den Bempt, published in anticipation of the upcoming World Congress in Vilnius, Lithuania.

“A tourist who visits a foreign nation and eats only at restaurants belonging to international chains, ignoring local cuisine, understandably limits his understanding of the local culture. Yet, the Esperanto movement believes that tourists can truly have cross-cultural experiences when they speak only a foreign, constructed language and give no attention to the local language” (C. Culver).

As has already been demonstrated, the phrase “give no attention to” does not correspond to reality. Also, by his use of the word “only”, Culver suggests that a planned language is less effective for communication than a national language. It was possible to doubt this fact in 1887 (when Esperanto was released to the public), but now that conjecture has been proven to be clearly false. In addition, by inserting the word “foreign” (with a comma), he suggests that participants don’t have a good command of Esperanto and don’t feel comfortable in it—and that’s how things must be in the case of an “artificial” language. However in reality, for most active Esperanto-speakers Esperanto is their strongest language (next to their mother tongue), and most of them consider Esperanto one of their cultural languages, i.e. part of their personal cultural identity.

I too belong to both of these majorities, and I completely agree with the belief which Culver attributes to the Esperanto movement in the second quoted sentence. If you talk about culture, life or whatever with locals (who are always abundant at World Congresses) you are indeed having an intercultural experience. And what language is best to use in such an intercultural exchange? Well, of course the language in which both participants in the conversation can communicate as freely as possible! Now take into account that the World Congress takes place each year in a different country and lasts a week—yet to acquire any decent command (to the level of fluency sufficient for discussing culture or politics, for example) of a national language requires years of study!

Use of public funds

In his essay Culver also criticizes the ways in which TEJO (World Esperanto Youth Organization) uses public funds, mainly from European governmental agencies. Of course not every TEJO-seminar is directly concerned with language diversity—nor does every TEJO-seminar have such an intended purpose. As Culver is not himself a citizen of a member-country of the Council of Europe (he is a U.S. citizen—translator’s note), it is rather indecent for him to be advising Europeans as to how they should spend their money. I think the Council of Europe is quite aware of what it’s doing. And as far as the choice of topics/themes for the seminars, well, our organization must of course follow the guidelines and preferences of sponsors and choose topics which they are willing to support! Also, the topic “project management” might appear “vacuous” to those who have no projects, but it is quite useful for a large organization with many activists and a growing number of new and ongoing projects. For example, projects such as lernu! (www.lernu.net) or Lingva Prismo (“Language Prism”—a project which directly supports language diversity! www.lingvo.info ) were born and continue to grow thanks to such seminars.

My personal experience from last year’s (2004) seminar in Sarajevo Intercultural Experiences through the Internet is a direct refutation of the image put forth by Culver: an integral part of the seminar consisted of contact with locals, and exploring their cultural identity and mutual relations between individual ethnic and cultural groups. Of course that entailed the use of the local language (obviously Slavic participants had a definite advantage in this regard), but valuable information was provided also by participating local Esperanto-speakers with whom we could discuss certain topics in greater detail.

Finally, it’s not completely objective to mention Language Festivals and cite only the year 2001, as if it were a marginal, one-time-only and long forgotten phenomenon. I have already mentioned Lingva Prismo, which is actually an ongoing internet Language Festival—and always evolving, always acquiring more language versions and more facts. And indeed, “physical” (i.e. non-virtual) Language Festivals occur on an ongoing basis, with four taking place in 2004, either with direct participation or under the auspices of TEJO—I personally participated in and helped organize the Language Festival in Bratislava, and therefore I can personally attest to the fact that we managed to organize a presentation of the Romany language and culture of the region, with the cooperation of the local foundation for the support of Romany culture, InfoRoma.

Crocodiles, caimans and kangaroos

Are people allowed to crocodile (i.e. speak one’s native language with other native speakers during an international Esperanto event)? Yes, of course. “Crocodiling” (krokodilado) is about as “taboo” for Esperanto-speakers as indulging in chocolate is for an overweight person (apart from the fact that it can bother other people present who don’t understand the particular language, and it does not develop one’s linguistic skills). And what about kangarooing?

“For example, a young man from France would greet another in English, but upon discovering that his conversation partner is from Italy, would switch to Italian. This would not find approval among Esperantists” (C. Culver).

I recall once again what I wrote after my first World Congress about the languages spoken during the Congress week. I think of my Austrian friend, a Francophile who in Esperanto congresses always enjoys some French conversation with the French-speakers. And I think of my other friend who took the opportunity to meet a native Italian speaker and spoke Italian with her, although they’re both Esperanto-speakers. To illustrate that such an attitude is neither rare nor marginal, let me add that the latter case happened just a few weeks ago during a TEJO board meeting.

Culver’s above example of the situation in a congress where Esperanto is not the working language could just as easily serve to show that English does not function well as a satisfactory means of mutual understanding—and in the case where both were speakers of romance languages, they found it most convenient to use a more closely related language. As I read “English here proves the neutral choice”, I burst out laughing. Then I realized that two non-native speakers of English were involved: well, okay, in this case English is “neutral”. . . but what’s the idea? To make English neutral by excluding native speakers?

Alternatives?

In the section on alternatives several organizations involved in the protection of languages are listed—I’m all in favor of the idea that Esperanto-speakers should cooperate more with such organizations and offer them the possibilities of Esperanto.

Also the criticism that Esperanto-speakers are not as vocal as they could be in protesting language discrimination is correct and helpful—we really should become more intensely interested in such cases also in countries which do not yet have an organized Esperanto movement.

I do not, however, see any realistic alternative for supporting language diversity, while at the same time being able to freely communicate with speakers of other languages. It seems to me that Culver is throwing the baby out with the bathwater: by neglecting the question of mutual understanding he goes to the opposite extreme of that for which he blames the Esperanto community.

The only implied “alternative” is quasi-diversity and actual language imperialism—a “rainbow” with two wide bands of one color with a few barely visible threads of other colors to the side. We need not search long for examples: just compare the “multilingualism” of the Council of Europe’s site (www.coe.int ) and many other web sites which have a couple of “full” language versions, with the rest being either very limited or not working (Culver’s personal webpage is an excellent example: it is theoretically available in several languages, but only the English version is both fully functional and complete—translator’s note), with the multilingualism of lernu! and other pages made using a symmetrical Esperanto-based translation method.

Esperanto is clearly the key to language diversity. I hope the public will better understand that any talk of “language diversity without Esperanto” is merely idle chit-chat about some barely possible chimera and will see that Esperanto can be easily and effectively utilized to protect language diversity in a context of mutual understanding and language equality.