Will Language Elitism Be a Problem?

[DesertShark]

Do you think elitism in terms of language is a problem? Or could be a problem for the revolution? Language elitism - jargon used in specific fields of study that create a barrier between common folk and those who are well versed in the area. Shouldn't we be trying to make all areas at least accessible in terms of a basic understanding?

-DS

[ZeroNowhere]

It depends entirely on whether we are able to secure the interpenetration of salamanders through the negation of the negation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It certainly features in traditional philosophy -- and I suspect only a revolutioin will cure that.

It also affects technical areas of science and those subjects where philosophical issues have been allowed to creep in.

The former can be ameliorated somewhat, I think, but not the latter.

[Lynx]

Elitism in general is a problem, which tends to result in technical jargon or arcane language as seen in law books. I'm a part time writer of help files, it is possible to create something that is 'accessible'.

p.s. This can be a form of job protection.

[Potemkin]

I think it is definitely a problem. The ways I see to combat this is to obviously try to make technical jargon and the like more accessible. On the flipside, we should be raising the standard of education and making it accessible to all, which will allow the people to grasp more technical subjects in their native jargon. I believe pretty much everyone is capable of understanding -- they deserve better than what the state is teaching.

It seems like there is also the problem of language elitism in the form of imperialism and colonialism -- forcing the native language of the empire onto everyone else. We're currently experiencing this with English. I think it leads to barriers in understanding, as well as global monoculture.

The best solution to this that I'm aware of is Esperanto. Some may laugh, but the idea is that it takes from many different languages, and is a second language for everyone. This means that everyone is on an even level (as there are no native speakers), and everyone gets to keep their native language and the culture that surrounds it.

I believe Esperanto could be a revolutionary force, and it does have a bit of revolutionary history. Imagine the working class of the world able to directly communicate with one another by learning one simple language (studies show that you can become fluent in Esperanto in a much shorter time than any natural language)! This is perfect for the busy and tired working-class. I'm in the process of learning it, if anyone cares to join me. :)

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, yes, I do like the idea of Esperanto. It certainly is something that I could see gaining popularity after a revolution, if not before. However, we'll have to be the ones promoting it and making resources for it (free courses, online and off, perhaps?), seeing as it's probably a bit too close to internationalism for the tastes of some people.
Also, one of the major forces in revolutionizing the Spanish people was the Modern School in Spain set up by Ferrer. This was the first of what is now known as free skools ("free as in free speech, not free beer"). Basically, the movement allows students to learn whatever the hell they want, and pursue their interests. It's something quite similar to anarchy, actually (well, it was made by an anarchist...). The original Modern School also allowed adults to learn (it set a fixed time for them and one for children, but dealing with boarders will probably make that obsolete for modern free skools), as well as teach (whatever they want, as long as students are interested).
Anyways, that was fairly off-topic.

[Revy]

Have you heard of Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda (http://www.satesperanto.org/)? Here's some information in English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sennacieca_Asocio_Tutmonda). It's a socialist left Esperanto movement.

They have several groups within it, including the communist fraction. (http://www.satesperanto.org/-Komunista-Frakcio-.html)

Here's an old Esperanto publication from a Trotskyist party (it says Workers' Party of the U.S., and the date is from the 1930's):

http://www.marxists.org/esperanto/laperm/lpr2_01.png

[Potemkin]

ZeroNowhere: I'm glad to see your support of Esperanto.

Stancel: I am aware of the SAT. Thanks for the links.

I apologize for perhaps taking this thread a bit off-course. I do think these concepts do apply to combating elitism in language, as the original poster asked, though.

Getting back on course, if elitism in language is a problem currently, is it also an impediment to revolution? If so, how, and what could be done to overcome it? Is it primarily an issue of accessibility, discrimination, something else, all of the above?

[chegitz guevara]

Esperanto is problematic that it only is based on Western languages. There are other invented tongues out there that are better.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I fail to see how an invented language wil help with technical terms from the sciences, or with obscure terms from metaphysics.

[Q]

The best solution to this that I'm aware of is Esperanto. Some may laugh, but the idea is that it takes from many different languages, and is a second language for everyone. This means that everyone is on an even level (as there are no native speakers), and everyone gets to keep their native language and the culture that surrounds it.

I believe Esperanto could be a revolutionary force, and it does have a bit of revolutionary history. Imagine the working class of the world able to directly communicate with one another by learning one simple language (studies show that you can become fluent in Esperanto in a much shorter time than any natural language)! This is perfect for the busy and tired working-class. I'm in the process of learning it, if anyone cares to join me. :)

I was about to make the same point :)
In fact, I've been wanting to learn it for some time now, just never had the time. I should really learn a club of Esperanto speakers or something.

But anyway, I agree completely: know only two languages: your own "mother" language or even dialect and esperanto and be able to communicate with everyone :cool:

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I fail to see how an invented language wil help with technical terms from the sciences, or with obscure terms from metaphysics.

Well, it probably won't, but it addresses language elitism between non mutually intelligible languages, which is a problem. Whereas the original poster's concern was elitism between speakers of one language.

[Potemkin]

Chegitz: That is a common argument against Esperanto that has some validity. However, it's a much easier language than English or perhaps any other western language for a non-western speaker to learn. In fact, one of the earliest uses of the language was by Asian anarchists to communicate with their European counterparts.

Rosa: We discussed education for increased understanding of technical terms, as well as attempts to make language more accessible. We also identified elitism in language in a colonial/imperialist sense, as well, which is where Esperanto could be of use. I posed some other questions for discussion, as well. What are your thoughts?

Q: It's nice to see a relatively warm reception toward Esperanto. To me, it seems a logical match for revolutionaries.

[wigsa]

Of course it will be.In Ireland however,socialist parties tend to post relatively simple bulletins and notices,leaving the technical talk for meetings and discussion groups,etc.

[DesertShark]

Getting back on course, if elitism in language is a problem currently, is it also an impediment to revolution? If so, how, and what could be done to overcome it? Is it primarily an issue of accessibility, discrimination, something else, all of the above?
Excellent set of questions, that's exactly what I was trying to get people to think about. Thank you for putting these in a clear form.

-DS

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Potemkin:


Rosa: We discussed education for increased understanding of technical terms, as well as attempts to make language more accessible. We also identified elitism in language in a colonial/imperialist sense, as well, which is where Esperanto could be of use. I posed some other questions for discussion, as well. What are your thoughts?

Well, I think only a proper science education will allow the general public to understand technical terms in the sciences.

As far as philosophy is concerned, no amount of education will help, since the vast majority of the terms used in traditional philosophy are meaningless.

So, in either case, I still can't see how an invented languge can help -- howsoever useful/commendable it is for other reasons.

[Potemkin]

Yes, I agree. Esperanto is useful for helping us to understand each other, but can't really help us with the problem of accessibility and understanding of complex or technical topics.

The only solution I see to the latter is better quality education, education that is accessible to all, and the decentralization of information. I think the Internet has real potential in this area. Internet access for poor communities and bridging the "digital divide" should be a big priority in the short-term. Not only does it have the potential to raise the education level and give people access to information, it will give them access to ideas that are contrary to the exploitative system they find themselves in.

I have an idea to start a worker owned and operated Internet cooperative. The idea would be to refurbish old PCs and distribute them in my neighborhood for free (there are tons of old electronics being thrown out), and charge people a sliding scale for computer repair. The money from the repair "business" would go into free wi-fi access for the neighborhood. The coop could also host events to teach people how to use the computer and could come preloaded with a few radical bookmarks. Plus, I would put Linux on the systems, which is free and stable, and it could be installed in Spanish (there is a large Hispanic community in my neighborhood).

Imagine the revolutionary potential of that!

Another route to go is for people that are scientists to use less technical terminology, or try to communicate the ideas behind the terms more effectively. There have been some "activist" scientist organizations, I believe, like "Science for the People" which existed in the '60s and just reformed recently (http://www.scienceforthepeople.com/). I can't vouch for them, as I'm not quite sure what they advocate.

As an anarchist, I don't believe that we should eliminate science, philosophy, or technology, but rather advocate that they become accessible, decentralized, and work for the community -- not the other way around. The technology that came out of communal need, that was for community betterment, would be liberatory, indeed. I guess I'm moving a bit beyond the topic again, my apologies.

Kropotkin called for the elimination of the division of labor. I'm sure he would be against, not specialization, but the super-specialization that is seen in our current society. If people knew more about a variety of topics, and were encouraged to work with their hands and their minds, the language that came out of such a cooperative, communal, decentralized, and diverse science would have to be more accessible and substantive.

For more information on Kropotkin's thoughts on the matter, check out "The Conquest of Bread," and "Brain Work and Manual Work," to name but a few pieces. You can find them on the "Anarchy Archives" (just Google it) or at a site that I'm compiling of Kropotkin's works: http://archive.thenuclearsummer.com/kropotkin.html.