News

Christopher Culver has written an impassioned essay, "Why Esperanto Suppresses Language Diversity" (pdf file; he's working on an HTML version), about why he has withdrawn from the Esperanto movement. Basically, his point is that despite its rhetoric about supporting language...

http://www.languagehat.com/archives/001852.php

__________________
Please comment the news by answering to it here, merci de commenter les nouvelles en les commentant ici.

J.P.A.

Having read Christopher Culver’s recent essay “Why Esperanto Suppresses Language Diversity: Thoughts on Leaving the Esperanto Movement” and having known the author for a number of years, I can conclude that this work is a skilled work of sophistry, using seemingly logical arguments that have no basis in actual fact, whose objective is to slander a social movement in which he failed to achieve the recognition and influence he desired.

Christopher Culver was a candidate for the position of general secretary of TEJO (the World Organization of Young Esperantists) in 2003—he was not elected. He interpreted this as a rejection of him personally—when the fact of the matter is that he was neither sufficiently qualified nor experienced. He also wished to become the editor of TEJO’s youth magazine—a position for which he similarly lacked experience.

But let us take a look at some of the flaws in his actual arguments:

“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”.

I simply must comment that when I participated in Esperanto conventions with the author (on several occasion) he always immediately sought out the local McDonald’s and ate there with great regularity for the duration of the convention (and if he was unable to find a McDonald’s he suffered greatly), while other “culturally suppressive” (!?) Esperantists enjoyed the local cuisine, avoiding McDonald’s and other globalistic chains with great fervor. So, this fact alone shows that Christopher Culver does not practice what he preaches…

“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”

This assertion goes beyond distorting the truth to embrace bold-faced lying. One would be hard pressed to find a group of people more culturally sensitive, culturally aware and culturally educated than Esperantists. For example, a good Esperantist friend of mine is presently studying Lithuanian in preparation for his trip to Vilnius for this summer’s World Esperanto Convention—he also studied Croatian before participating in the World Esperanto Convention in Zagreb in 2001, and Swedish before participating in the World Esperanto Convention in Gothenburg in 2003. In addition, at EVERY World Esperanto Convention and World Esperanto Youth Convention there are intensive language courses in the local languages, numerous excursions to places of local interest (places usually missed by traditional tourists), and extensive presentations of local (often minority) culture and arts. Does this sound like the behavior of people who give no attention to local language?!

But there is yet another flaw in Culver’s reasoning—while it is true that Esperantists are extremely active and enthusiastic in learning other languages (especially compared to typical English-speaking tourists who think the solution to communication problems is to shout slowly in dummed-up English!), there are limits to the languages one person can reach fluency in (especially considering the fact that most of us are not wealthy people of leisure who can devote long hours to the acquisition of many languages). I, for example, have traveled extensively in Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, Sweden, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany), as well as in Asia (Japan, Korea, Malaysia) and South America (Brazil)—all on a very limited budget. How? By using the Pasporta Servo (Passport Service)—an network of Esperanto-speaking host families around the world which offer free lodging to Esperanto-speaking travelers. Of course I do speak some of the languages of the above mentioned countries—but I would probably have to devote all my waking hours to language study for the rest of my life to master them all. But Esperanto provides travelers with a unique window into other cultures—instead of staying in tourist-friendly, English-speaking hotel chains (expensive, with absolutely no flavor of the local culture), you can stay in the homes of real people, experience real local culture and experience real everyday life. Again, does this seem to suggest that Esperantists have no interest in local languages and cultures?!

Of course, I would be more than happy to refute the remaining arguments in Culver’s essay—and I will, if the members of the forum show an interest—but I’ve already taken up considerable space in refuting just ONE of his many fallacies. But I think that even this brief response makes it more than obvious that the only place where Esperanto suppresses language diversity is in Christopher Culver’s distorted, vindictive imagination…

For some facts about the Esperanto movement’s major organizations (also with information on various intercultural projects and undertakings) and Pasporta Servo please see the following sites (all in a surprizing number of languages, including many less commonly encountered minority languages):

www.uea.org
www.tejo.org
www.tejo.org/ps
www.esperanto.net

numantinus

Can't you admit he is just right? Don't you see that the Esperanto mouvement doesn't accept critics (you are beautifull examples of it). I support Culver's words; in fact, I could add some more... UEA's internal politics and the intolerance in the Esperanto mouvement are a real shame. Just face the facts and try to do better to honnour Zamenhof's creation.

J.P.A.

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.

I have chosen not to copyright this text, and I allow extracts, as I suppose that someone could find herein useful ideas and wordings.

Translated from the Esperanto original (http://co.uea.org/~tejo/diversecon.html ) by Joel Amis.

pluiepoco

Disputes dilute monoply, it's just okay!

numantinus

It seems like you have a real problem trying to demonstrate the falsity of Culver's opinion. But you get the inverted efect, because if not... why would you loose your time in this discussion? Face it, Esperanto mouvement is imperfect... worst, it gives a false image of itself and it can't admit criticism, so it cannot change for better.

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.