#1

1. Would the world be a more peaceful place if everyone spoke the same language? Think here specifically about issues of communication and diplomacy.

A universal language would most definitely increase humanity’s chances of reaching the daunting goal of world peace. The article by Christer Jönsson and Martin Hall (Communication: An Essential Aspect of Diplomacy) covers the relationship between communication and diplomacy very well. In their words, “Communication is to diplomacy as blood is to the human body. Whenever communication ceases, the body of international politics, the process of diplomacy, is dead, and the result is violent conflict or atrophy.”

The authors further probe the issue by dividing “communication” into the spoken language and body language. To me, body language can be viewed as the current “universal” language. Regardless of what sounds come out of a person’s mouth, strong emotions can be conveyed through hand gestures, facial expressions, and other bodily movements. If truly needed, a recipient will be able to understand the overall message, overcoming any spoken language barriers. However, body language is more ambiguous. The authors claim that the ambiguity can be viewed as an advantage: “Ambiguous signals allow the sender to argue ‘I never said that,’ ‘this is not what I meant,’ and the like, if the situation calls for it.” However, this vagueness is not what we need when trying to reach peace. Thus, although body language is “universal”, spoken language is needed to express exact wants and needs.

One might argue that our modern methods of translating are so quick and efficient, language barriers can be completely ignored. However, I disagree. Working towards world peace is a long, arduous process that includes countless details and complications. When diplomats converse with one another using a translator, minute details may be lost in the process and frustration may arise when exact wants cannot be expressed clearly. Translators are not able to convey much of the connotations and slang that are associated with every language.

Besides simplifying diplomacy from the current complicated system of translations, a universal language itself could potentially directly lead to a bit more world peace. People in every culture and every government hold biases against those of other countries; hearing the language of a nation that one is opposed to may unintentionally spark a prejudice in the listener, automatically creating an underlying layer of tension. In the futuristic world of Horizons, one that is much more united than our current one, Mary Rosenblum lets the issue of racial differences still affect international relations. Race “didn’t cause bloodshed in big wars, like it had once. But it was still an issue” (158). Even with access to the entire global economy, Ahni’s father mostly did business with other Asians. Asians were more familiar to him, with similar cultures and languages. Hopefully, a universal language could possibly begin pulling down these natural divides and create a greater sense of unity among the international community. However, regardless of whether or not it directly contributes to world peace, I do believe that a universal language would greatly increase the chance of peace across the globe.