This video provides a brief synopsis of the development and characteristics of this international language. Watch it if you want to learn more about Esperanto's origins and benefits of the language. Enjoy!!!
Monday, January 28, 2008
Esperanto and the International Community....
Last class we spent a considerable amount of time discussing what indeed constituted a nation state, as well as how this entity may affect and further perpetuate international communication and global politics. Traditionally, a nation state is seen as a specific form of state, which exists to provide a sovereign territory for a particular nation. As it was discussed in class, the state is a political entity while the nation is more of a cultural and or ethnic entity. When successfully implemented, such as the case of Portugal or Iceland for example, this implies that the citizens share a common language, culture, and values (Miriam-Webster Online- www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary...).
According to Thussu it was the rise of modern nationalisms and the expansion of European colonial empires that played a significant role in the modern creation of nation states. With the expansion of European influence in the 19th century and the growing effects of free market capitalism, attempts at monopolizing the global communication industry were easily satisfied through the expansion of shipping, railway, and telegraphy systems (Thussu, 3). Essentially, modern nations as they began to emerge in the 18th and 19th centuries were fundamentally new types of human community involving a unified geography, a unified temporality, as well as a unified vernacular language- which prior to this time was unheard of (Thussu, 3). It is from this point specifically, that I wish to address a topic which was not mentioned in the readings, but nonetheless has the potential to contribute significantly to the study and more importantly, progression of international communication.
It is evident that, as a result of Britains predominance in the industrial revolution of the 19th century, the English language has dominated as “the international language.” But why is it that English is all the rage? Why is there a higher demand for English teachers than any other kind of language teacher? Is it because English is simply a superior language? Easier to learn? Structurally distinguished? I think not. Rather, it has been the preferred language of the last two superpowers (the United States and Britain), and it is because of their dominant influence over the global economy, politics, and society that this language is the chosen elite. Personally, I can see many flaws in this logic, and as such wish to discuss the true international language of Esperanto.
Esperanto is a language not of any particular country or ethnic group, rather it is a neutral, international language created by L.L. Zamenhof on the notion of fostering a worldwide community of peace and international understanding (www.esperanto.ca/kurso/). Esperanto is the most widely spoken constructed international auxiliary language and is most useful for constructing neutral communication. This means that communication through Esperanto does not give advantages to the members of any particular people or culture, but provides an ethos of equality of rights, tolerance and true internationalism. There is even evidence that learning Esperanto may provide a good foundation for learning languages in general, and various educators have estimated that Esperanto can be learned in anywhere from one quarter to one twentieth the amount of time required for other languages (www.esperanto.ca/kurso/). With its vocabulary stemming from germanic and Romance languages, and its phonology from Slavic languages, it is evident that Esperanto makes an effort to incorporate a wide array of language families in its creation and evolution.
I realize that there are many flaws and possible counter-arguments to the idea of a consciously constructed language such as Esperanto being the dominant medium of international communication, but the ideology behind the concept is nonetheless intriguing. Essentially, it provides all speakers with an equal ground on which to communicate, leaving no room for linguistic advantages such as that with native English speakers in the international arena. With this in mind I seek to propose the idea of a common language such as Esperanto alleviating further monopolization of the communication industry, and simultaneously further perpetuating a truly international community of peace and understanding as being entirely possible.
According to Thussu it was the rise of modern nationalisms and the expansion of European colonial empires that played a significant role in the modern creation of nation states. With the expansion of European influence in the 19th century and the growing effects of free market capitalism, attempts at monopolizing the global communication industry were easily satisfied through the expansion of shipping, railway, and telegraphy systems (Thussu, 3). Essentially, modern nations as they began to emerge in the 18th and 19th centuries were fundamentally new types of human community involving a unified geography, a unified temporality, as well as a unified vernacular language- which prior to this time was unheard of (Thussu, 3). It is from this point specifically, that I wish to address a topic which was not mentioned in the readings, but nonetheless has the potential to contribute significantly to the study and more importantly, progression of international communication.
It is evident that, as a result of Britains predominance in the industrial revolution of the 19th century, the English language has dominated as “the international language.” But why is it that English is all the rage? Why is there a higher demand for English teachers than any other kind of language teacher? Is it because English is simply a superior language? Easier to learn? Structurally distinguished? I think not. Rather, it has been the preferred language of the last two superpowers (the United States and Britain), and it is because of their dominant influence over the global economy, politics, and society that this language is the chosen elite. Personally, I can see many flaws in this logic, and as such wish to discuss the true international language of Esperanto.
Esperanto is a language not of any particular country or ethnic group, rather it is a neutral, international language created by L.L. Zamenhof on the notion of fostering a worldwide community of peace and international understanding (www.esperanto.ca/kurso/). Esperanto is the most widely spoken constructed international auxiliary language and is most useful for constructing neutral communication. This means that communication through Esperanto does not give advantages to the members of any particular people or culture, but provides an ethos of equality of rights, tolerance and true internationalism. There is even evidence that learning Esperanto may provide a good foundation for learning languages in general, and various educators have estimated that Esperanto can be learned in anywhere from one quarter to one twentieth the amount of time required for other languages (www.esperanto.ca/kurso/). With its vocabulary stemming from germanic and Romance languages, and its phonology from Slavic languages, it is evident that Esperanto makes an effort to incorporate a wide array of language families in its creation and evolution.
I realize that there are many flaws and possible counter-arguments to the idea of a consciously constructed language such as Esperanto being the dominant medium of international communication, but the ideology behind the concept is nonetheless intriguing. Essentially, it provides all speakers with an equal ground on which to communicate, leaving no room for linguistic advantages such as that with native English speakers in the international arena. With this in mind I seek to propose the idea of a common language such as Esperanto alleviating further monopolization of the communication industry, and simultaneously further perpetuating a truly international community of peace and understanding as being entirely possible.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Week #1- The Propaganda Model and Gramsci's Conception of Hegemony
After class on Tuesday the idea of globalization encompassing so many working definitions was definitely the most important idea pulled from our seminar. Although I did the readings and have encountered this idea of globalization several times before it was not until this class that I actually had the chance to break down and analyze the main competing theories of globalization in such a detailed and critical manner. In layman’s terms, the idea of globalization can essentially be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single society. This process is described as encompassing a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces.
Appropriately, we devoted much time to picking apart and thoroughly understanding perspectives on globalization such as modernization theory, dependency theory, and theories of the information society. Although I found the explanations and criticisms of such theories to greatly contribute to my working definition of globalization I was somewhat disgruntled by the amount of time devoted in the text to the notion of hegemony , especially how it relates to the mass media being an instrument of propaganda. As it was briefly suggested in chapter 2, Chomsky and Herman’s propaganda model examine how news in mainstream US media systems pass through several filters, including the size, ownership, and profit orientation of media firms. The heavy reliance of news corporations on advertising and dependence on business and governmental sources for information, in a way interact with and reinforce the ideas of Gramsci.
Essentially, Gramsci’s conception of hegemony is rooted in the notion that the dominant social group in a society has the capacity to exercise intellectual and moral direction over society at large, and to build a new system of social alliances to support its aims. In other words, the most effective way of wielding power is to build consent by ideological control of cultural production and distribution ie. the media. These ideas seem to fit perfectly with Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model as a way of explaining the political function of the mass media in propagating and maintaining the dominant ideology of the select group in power. Thus, it can be argued that, although the media here in Canada for example, are free from direct government control, they nevertheless act as agents to legitimize the chosen dominant ideology. So the next time you feel unsatisfied with your preferred news reportage corporations coverage ask yourself this… What feeds into this hegemonic cycle and what alternative methods can you take to find the stories you really want to hear about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)