J.P.A.

Christopher Culver again tried to defend his arguments in a separate “rebuttal” to my original response. However, instead of adding convincing arguments to his original essay, he only restates the same and adds disturbing new aspects which further reveal his personal hypocrisy. (Again, I emphasize that I and my closest friends and colleagues knew Culver personally for many years—therefore I’m not commenting simply on his written arguments [which, at first glance, look somewhat plausible], but also on the real person who is behind the arguments . . . a person whose lifestyle is not reflected in his writing)

“Your mention of UEA providing a language course at each UK is irrelevant. . . . My argument is that since these courses are not mandatory for all participants, they might as well not exist. A movement which claims to be for language diversity must, to be true to its own ideals, make this diversity mandatory. If I thought the system were worth saving, I would suggest making congress-goers pay a deposit along with the registration fee, which would be refunded if they attended all lessons” (C. Culver).

First of all, this system he proposes is extremely undemocratic. Active Esperanto-speakers never want to impose any language on anyone—whether this language is Esperanto, English or Welsh. The Esperanto movement is NOT a movement to FORCE people to be multilingual! It is a movement to provide a neutral foundation first and foremost for mutual understanding among people. From this neutral basis naturally grows greater respect for and awareness of minority languages and language issues in general. So, the official goals of the World Congress (UK) are to encourage the exchange of ideas on a neutral footing (and as all the participants in the Congress are Esperanto-speakers, Esperanto is the neutral basis for communication). Teaching languages is not a primary goal of World Congresses—nor should it be, because it would be a waste of time for Esperanto-speakers to travel to a foreign country just to sit in mandatory language classes for the whole week. But let’s remember the title of Culver’s original essay: “Why Esperanto SUPPRESSES Language Diversity”. The fact that ample opportunities to study the local language are widely and openly available to congress participants, the fact that many lectures and discussion groups are devoted to the local culture, and the fact that the closest thing to a “mandatory” program in the congress week, the “National Evening” (in which almost all congress participants attend), is a spectacular presentation of local culture, should all be sufficient refutation of Culver’s hypotheses. (And, by the way, he didn’t respond to my McDonald’s remark—because he knows it’s true: Culver’s idea of experiencing local cuisine is visiting the local McDonald’s!)

“For one, that Esperantists enjoy meaningful cultural exchange through PS (Pasporta Servo) is not the case, for there is no significant exchange if the guest does not use the language of the host.” (C. Culver)

First of all, this argument is based on a false hypothesis, i.e. that meaningful cultural exchange can ONLY occur in the language of the host. Well, if this is true, I hate to inform all you people who have ever experienced cultural exchange using Esperanto, English, French or any other third language (i.e. any language not native to both speakers involved), then you DIDN’T have a real cultural exchange, according to Culver. So, the only way to have a genuine intercultural experience, in his opinion, is either to limit oneself to the countries whose language(s) you already speak fluently, or devote large amounts of time and resources to language study. Now some people, such as Culver, who have a large amount of free time, and a freedom from professional and family commitments, may be willing and able to learn the large quantities of languages to enable them to visit homes and have intercultural experiences in as many countries as I, a simple Esperanto-speaker, have already had—but I doubt that there are many such people. And anyway, for such elite groups Esperanto is not necessary—Esperanto was designed for simple working-class people . . . not for the elite.

“Ah, as regards the argument that people do not have time for many languages, I think that your view is naive. Desperately poor societies where labour is great and leisure is small generally have a greater occurance [sic] of multilingualism that [sic] many comfortable societies in the West.” (C. Culver)

No, Mr. Culver, your view is naïve. To compare the situation of people in poor societies who must learn other languages out of economic necessity to the situation of some westerner learning Hungarian (for example) out of simple cultural curiosity is like saying that young women in poor societies (or poorer classes of wealthy societies) are more sexually promiscuous than in wealthy societies because they have a much higher incidence of prostitution! Just because certain conditions exist under duress, doesn’t mean that they can, or should, exist in ideal conditions. And again, I stress the element of necessity in this formula—but when people don’t need a certain language, they don’t learn it easily (such is the case of many Mexican immigrants to the U.S.—those who remain in their own ethnic enclave in the U.S. tend not to learn English, or learn only rudimentary phrases. Why? Because they don’t feel an urgent need to learn English).

“The efficiency of foreign language learning depends mostly on motivation and a little bit on pedagogy. To say that Esperanto is good because learning languages is hard seems to be like an unnecessary capitulation” (C. Culver).

Yes, I agree that motivation is an important part of language learning (and as we’ve seen in the preceding paragraph, economic necessity is the strongest motivator)—but Culver fails to mention a few other factors: time and resources. For people who don’t have an urgent economic necessity to learn a certain language, time is an important factor. Most people have jobs, families and other concerns that limit the time that can be devoted to language learning. What Culver fails to mention in his essay (and subsequent replies) is that he has succeeded in mastering so many languages due to his unconventional lifestyle. Culver travels from place to place, living with other people (i.e. being taken care of by other people, so that none of his language-learning time is robbed by mundane tasks like cooking and washing) and subsidized primarily by his mother. This care-free lifestyle affords him ample time to work on his personal language diversity . . . a luxury which most working people don’t have . . .

So, what is at the heart of Culver’s argument? It all boils down to this: Esperanto gives ordinary people the ability to have direct, meaningful intercultural experiences. This puts Esperanto-speakers on the same level as multilingual elites like Culver. To acknowledge this would give Culver and other people who have learned many languages a feeling of inadequacy, a feeling that their talents and/or accomplishments are not important. Thus, he and others feel moved to strike out at Esperanto, claiming that “one cannot have real intercultural experiences through Esperanto” and the like. It makes him and like-minded people feel good and vindicated.

But the fact remains that, Culver or no, Esperanto continues to help people have not only meaningful intercultural experiences, but also more meaningful lives. Esperanto helps simple people uncover a greater world beyond the limits of their national boundaries. And, deny this if he will, Christopher Culver, a simple American boy from Pennsylvania, would not have uncovered the wider world without the opportunities afforded him by the Esperanto movement. The Esperanto movement and community was the mother who bore him from a limited American experience into a greater international experience—and now this ungrateful and perfidious son has turned on his mother, denying her and even assaulting her. . .
J.P.A.

P.S. As for Numantius’s comment: The Esperanto movement does accept constructive criticism—but, it is necessary to respond to Culver’s comments because his criticisms are based on misrepresentations of the facts. That’s called a logical fallacy (often called the “straw man” or “paper tiger”)—Culver paints an imaginative (but highly inaccurate) picture of a villainous Esperanto movement, which he subsequently slays with great ease. So first of all, the Esperanto movement which he presents is nothing like real Esperanto movement. And secondly, many of the assumptions about language diversity are flawed. So if his argument were based on an accurate presentation of the Esperanto movement, I would be more willing to listen.