|
6. Synthesis and conclusion: some
principles and values for peace and linguistic justice throughout the planet
To sum up,
and to help to round off the discussion and reflection, I will repeat some of the
principles on the linguistic organisation of mankind, developed throughout the essay and
dealt with in earlier research: (19)
One. The
ideologies and conceptual landscapes we need to think the problem must take into
consideration the so far existing sociolinguistic experience if we are to avoid a
linguistic organisation of the planet based on a hierarchical and asymmetrical structure
between the language or languages of intercommunication and the remaining codes.
Equalitarian coexistence must be based on the correct distribution of functions, using the
principle of subsidiarity, which would introduce the norm that everything that
can be done by local languages, does not need to be performed by a more general code of
intercommunication. The main idea would be adequate protection of the own ecosystemic
spaces of each language.
Two. One of the guides for
applying the first principle must be that being sufficiently competent in a code of
intercommunication does not do away with the right or need of human linguistic communities
to use their codes fully and in the maximum possible local functions. The indiscriminate
application of the principle of competence will always favour the code that is
most generally shared (that of intercommunication), which could take functions from other
languages, endangering their existence and, hence, activating unnecessary conflicts that
are hard to resolve.
Three. Since
human beings can represent reality arriving at conclusions that do not depend directly on
reality, but rather on narrative and interpretative configurations created by humans
themselves, in addition to the practical instructions for organising linguistic
communication, public authorities must disseminate an ideology that clearly favours
diversity and linguistic equality. Therefore, they need to promote the self-dignity of
marginalized linguistic groups and offset wide-spread popular representations such as the
ideology of 'linguistic superiority' or phenomena such as the self-perception of
inferiority to external 'reference groups or languages' considered as models to be
assimilated.
Four. Preference should be given to
methodologies for developing communicative competence in the code of intercommunication to
ensure a sufficiently high level for the diverse generations of individuals that will
acquire this language. We should also ensure that inadequate results do not lead to
parents (able to do so) using the code of intercommunication as their childs L1,
instead of the native variety of the group. Clearly, this development of practical
knowledge of the language or languages of interrelations should not prejudice the
development and use of local languages.
Five. Equal
attention should be paid to the study of cases whereby a linguistic group has frequent
social contact with a considerable number of individuals whose L1 is a code of
intercommunication, as it is highly likely that the predominant trend will be to use the
latter as a habitual norm; this would have potential repercussions on the
intergenerational reproduction of the other language if the populations integrated
socially. In these cases, the mechanism of mixed marriage can unintentionally reduce the
index of generational transfer of local codes considerably if the population is not made
aware and if linguistic diversity is not fostered within the family unit itself through
the principle of 'one parent = one language', in cases where this is possible and
necessary.
We are, therefore, faced with a
fascinating task of research and organisation, requiring considerable imagination. We
urgently need to organise ourselves to inform, persuade and convince the heads of world
organisations, state governments and other public organisations to study how these
principles can be applied and to put them into practice. Furthermore, it is both urgent
and necessary to carry out in-depth research on the various aspects concerned (politics,
law, pedagogy, philosophy, socio-economics, etc.), from the point of view of ecological
complexity, bearing in mind that, as Morin says, "political action itself, more so
than complex knowledge, depends on the strategy, on the art". (20)
The extension of perspectives of
complexity and their application to very diverse fields is one of the current needs of the
entire planet. It may be necessary to relocate this reconstructed thinking in the widest
context of a crisis of civilisation leading us to re-think fragmentary and reductionist
views of the world in favour of representations that are closer to the reality of human
facts and values based on ecological vision, sustainability and universal fraternity. The
physicist, Fritjof Capra, maintains that a change in thinking is not enough: our values
must change too. Both ways of thinking and values must combine in equal measures the
trends of self-assertion and integration, which are, as Capra says, basic in
all living systems. "Neither of them is intrinsically good or bad. What is good, or
healthy, is a dynamic balance; what is bad, or unhealthy, is imbalance
over-emphasis of one tendency and neglect of the other". (21) Capra therefore suggests
dealing with the columns of the table below complementarily, in order to rectify,
particularly in Western culture, the predominance of assertive thought and values at the
expense of integrative ones: |