Iranians, the English Language, and the Global Economy

Ayatollah Khamenei's criticism of the exclusive promotion of the English language in Iran has sparked significant reactions both domestically and among Iranians abroad. On Monday, May 2, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic criticized the teaching of English to elementary and preschool children, stating that "the language of science is not only English. Other languages such as Spanish, French, German, and (languages of) Eastern countries are also languages of science." This criticism takes on a special meaning within the Islamic Republic and its anti-American radical discourse. Opponents of the regime, who have issues with the entire discourse and consider it disastrous for the long-term interests of the country, often overlook the main issue and limit themselves to interpreting and critiquing the leader's statements in relation to the internal and external political atmosphere of Iran. They ignore that the dominant role of the English language in global culture, politics, and economy, its seemingly unstoppable advance at the expense of other languages, and the potential harm it could inflict on human civilization and its richness and diversity, is a topic raised in various ways by linguists, academic circles, and international organizations (including UNESCO) and should not be confined to discussions within the Islamic Republic and the intentions of its leaders. In other words, such an important topic cannot be addressed solely within the confines of Iran and in the context of positioning against the discourse of its leadership. The rise of English as the most important means of communication on a global scale and its establishment as the dominant language internationally is not because this language has an inherent superiority over others. If the history of human civilization and power relations had evolved differently, other languages such as German, French, Chinese, etc., could have taken on the same role. Or perhaps one of the constructed languages like "Esperanto," which was proposed in the late 19th century by Polish doctor Ludwik Zamenhof as an international language, could have gained global acceptance today. However, the course of events placed English on the throne of power and endowed it with a strength that no other language has possessed in the history of human civilization. This dominance stems from various factors, but here we mainly emphasize its roots and economic consequences. The groundwork for the "globalization" of the English language began in the early 19th century with the first wave of "globalization" of the economy, which was driven by the British Empire. England was the cradle of the first industrial revolution, which opened a new chapter in the history of human civilization based on coal, railways, steel, and textiles. The British liberal school, with renowned figures like David Ricardo, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill, redirected philosophy and social sciences. Since then, the global economy has been shaped around Britain, which utilized all its cultural, military, and political capacities to establish a new economic system in a large part of the world. In other words, Britain was the guarantor of this period of "globalization" of the economy, which made the free movement of goods, capital, and even people possible on a large scale. At the same time, Britain created an extensive colonial empire where "the sun never set." All these factors equipped the English language with the necessary means to become a global language. However, the first wave of "globalization of the economy" that began with England collapsed in the face of the calamity of World War I. After that, following a twenty-five-year competition among emerging powers (the United States, Germany, Japan) for global dominance, the flag once again fell into the hands of an English-speaking power at the end of World War II. This refers to the United States, which quickly replaced England as the main axis of the international economy and simultaneously took on the role of the most important pillar of "globalization" of the economy. In this significant transformation, English naturally solidified its role as the language of "globalization." The famous "Marshall Plan," which the United States provided to help rebuild war-torn Western European countries, was accompanied by mechanisms aimed at developing American cultural products and expanding the English language. Later, with the dismantling of customs barriers, the liberalization of international trade, and the expansion of the exchange of goods and services, especially based on agreements made within the framework of the "World Trade Organization," American cultural products, including Hollywood cinema and Anglo-Saxon music, gained vast distribution opportunities in many countries worldwide. Currently, other factors are significantly contributing to the rapid expansion of American cultural influence and the even faster development of the English language, including the intense concentration of major companies in new communication and information technologies in America and the irresistible quality of American universities. However, for the Persian language to defend itself against the rise of English, the most effective tool is to grant freedom to the Iranian people. Without the necessary conditions for the free production of cultural products in various fields such as music, cinema, theater, literature, and social sciences, Iranians, especially the youth, will turn away from their national language and seek what they consider their right in the 21st century in other languages, especially English. Thus, to access a vast amount of knowledge, information, art, and entertainment in the 21st-century world, the English language has become an unavoidable lever. It is evident that the globalization of the English language has created a very important market for a multitude of American cultural and entertainment products. It suffices to mention the legendary power of prestigious American universities that have become gold mines by offering their professors and courses to the world or by establishing branches and granting degrees in various countries. In response to the rise of the English language and the vast field that this phenomenon has created for American cultural products, two reactions are observed in the West: 1) The first reaction, which has the support of the United States, emphasizes the necessity of free exchange and the principle of competition, refusing to differentiate between cultural products and other goods and services. From this perspective, music and films should cross borders without facing obstacles, and consumers should freely choose their preferred products. 2) The second reaction, supported by a few Western countries, many developing countries, and also UNESCO, argues that a cultural and artistic product (book, cinema, or music) should not be treated at the same level as goods like meat, cars, or shoes. Cultural and artistic products form the foundation of the national and historical identity of countries and particularly influence the language of these countries and its fate. France, relying on a concept called "cultural exception," among other things to defend the French language against English, refrains from implementing the World Trade Organization agreement regarding its cultural products. Accordingly, the government of this country, contrary to the regulations of the mentioned organization, provides state aid to producers of cinematic works and its law requires radio and television networks to allocate a significant portion of their broadcasts to French-language products. There is no doubt that liberalism and free trade, which have been the driving force behind significant economic advancements over the past two centuries, should not be regarded as an "absolute dogma." Exceptions can be considered in certain conditions and based on considerations in this or that area, or by granting preferential and supportive conditions to this or that sector, temporarily shielding it from competition with foreign goods and services. However, in some developing countries, the defense of national identity and language becomes an excuse for remaining closed. Ayatollah Khamenei's criticism of the exclusive promotion of the English language should be examined within this framework. It can be confidently stated that if the English language continues its relentless expansion and marginalizes other languages, our world will lose its diversity, and a very significant part of the richness of human civilization will be destroyed. Iranians must also protect the Persian language and their other languages as they would their own eyes and ensure their survival through constant exchange with other cultures. It is also true that Iranians should show interest in other languages alongside English. Even if we only consider issues related to economic relations and marketing, many Iranians should become familiar with the language of the one billion three hundred million Chinese. The Spanish language offers extensive opportunities for Iranians to navigate a powerful continent like Latin America. The French language is not only essential for engaging with parts of Europe and Canada but also for accessing the rising market of West Africa with hundreds of millions of consumers in the not-so-distant future. However, for the Persian language to defend itself against the rise of English, the most effective tool is to grant freedom to the Iranian people. Without the necessary conditions for the free production of cultural products in various fields such as music, cinema, theater, literature, and social sciences, Iranians, especially the youth, will turn away from their national language and seek what they consider their right in the 21st century in other languages, especially English.