#1 RW

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

            Communication between cultures and nations has and always will be an essential aspect of diplomacy. Diplomats must be able to collectively debate and arrive upon consensus in an orderly fashion to progress worldly discussions. To do so, they must be able to speak with one another. However, there are current means of efficient translation while addressing diplomatic issues. Today, there are between 5,000 and 10,000 abstract languages spoke in the world and diplomacy is currently capable to maintain a certain level of international peace. The dismissal of 9,999 unique languages will most definitely not benefit the world and create a more peaceful international arena. A German diplomat himself, describes that, “language is not only language, it is a way of life.” Each language that subsists in the world today carries individual values, history, culture, and diversity and the textbook “We The People,” portrays that wealth lies within diversity.

Demolishing everything that people know only merited to diversity in languages, would hinder the worldly advancements we enclose today because of collective knowledge gathered in different languages. Sven Scherz-Schade, a theorist of multilingualism, describes dominant world languages, only seen as indispensable because of ease and not because of it’s contribution of cultural value to the world society. He continues to state that, “we know we won’t get very far with one language alone; we need foreign languages.” This is because all have equity, significance and value on a global scale and must be equally represented. The only way to do so is by allowing every diplomat to give explanations with vocabulary they are familiar too and use words in their language, their culture, that may not even exist in another. A single language and exoneration of culture would demean progression we have made in peace treaties today through diplomacy. For example the United Nations in New York, holds diverse objects and scripts from some of the worlds most diverse nations as a symbol of peace. Therefore having a monolingual society would not make our world a more peaceful place.

The single possible benefit of a monolingual society would be fewer miscommunications due to translation errors and the exclusion of language barriers in diplomacy. The riddance of small distinct details lost in translation is not significant enough to make the world a more peaceful place than diversity among languages historically has. The Conflict Resolution Organization claims that miscommunications are not derived from the foreign language itself but from individual perceptions and misapprehension of another culture’s actions. The United Nations presently allows diplomats to converse in peaceful and non-judgmental means. Along with diversity of language inevitably comes diversity in culture enriching our world with ideas of development. Each nation’s individuality presented in their local language, permits constituents to instill pride and sovereignty within their governments. The world may suffer from fewer translation errors in diplomacy but will certainly not be a more peaceful place, than it already is, due to a monolingual society.