This post is motivated by the aim to give some backgrounds of a (so called) "lightning talk", because in oral explanations only few deeper backgrounds can be conveyed. And moreover, because of the fact, that this (Lightening) talk was not delivered, this blog post is getting even more important and was there subsequently altered. The written explanation (of the talk), however, is without a common understanding of the spoken situation and has to be more explicit. Naturally also a written text has to rest on presumptions, it is also situated in a context, in this case the context of a blog about language policy. Readers of this blogs may have noticed, that this blog is using the Wikipedia as an important tool of reference. In general, it is the Wikipedia in English, which is cited here, another convention of texts (oral AND written) is, that they situated in linguistic context. A text, with the title "language lightning" is addressing this, but not for abstract reasons of "fairness", between languages, because of a principle, that calls on the equity of languages. The validity of this argumentation is not discussed here, the linguistic roots of nationalism and multilingualism are situated here in a different, in a political context. Defining "political" can also be done very rudimentary here, in a sense, that political is related to a power for change. Addressing Multilingualism can be seen as a power to change a political situation. This is an abstract, in positive sense, ideological concept applied by the EU and even more by the Council of Europe to transcendent linguistic power. To "Transcend power" does not mean to ignore it, it means to use it as a tool for reaching another level. Hannah Arendt gives in her lucid analysis of the US-constitution attention to the fact that the polycentric power-structure in the US-constitution leads to greater influence of that nation, then if the power is concentrated in one structure. This is a paradox at the first sight, because different power centers could block each other and the outcome would be lesser power for all acting parties. However on the long run polycentric structures not only more secure (checks and balances as a mechanism against dictatorship), but also generating power. The polycentric world of the national states can be seen as a very effective mechanism for preventing a world government. But on the other hand a unified stand against the global ecological problems of this planet seems to inevitable. Transferring this to the given situation: How the can the language of world power be used to create a unified stand against global challenges, while strengthening a polycentric power structure? Or in short, you to align with?
References:
Arendt, Hannah, On Revolution (Wp)
Berlin, The Hedgehound & the Fox (Wp)
van Parijs, Philippe (2011), Linguistic Justice for Europe and the World, OUP
