One English-speaking America

SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON, the prescient author of The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order again has challenged readers with another controversial thesis in Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity. The earlier book became a classic debate in international political economy courses until Sept. 11, 2001 when Al Qaeda came down strongly on Huntington's side. A year after the publication of Who Are We?, the debate about Huntington's positions and immigration in general rages on in vitriolic fashion.

Huntington's argument is pretty straightforward: There is a core American identity and work ethic shaped by Anglo-Protestantism that underlies American political and economic success; the mass immigration of Hispanic and mainly Mexican peoples into the U.S. is undermining the culture that is a function of Anglo-Protestantism; that the heavy implantation of a second language (Spanish) presents communication difficulties that ultimately will be insurmountable; and that the divisive cultural nature of the polyglot society and the dissipation or the Anglo-Protestant ethic will result in a decline of the U.S.

His solution is not that Mexicans be prevented from immigrating to the U.S.--he recognizes that this still is a nation of immigrants--but that the U.S. elites should enforce assimilation in a planned and replicative way. Only assimilation will provide for a continuing and competitive state.

For those who are longtime readers of Huntington, his crafted and coherent arguments are easily recognizable. Most of his critics respond emotionally and bitterly. They would not if Huntington had not come close to the mark.

Ordinary Americans clearly are expressing the very nativist sentiments he describes, emotional reactions that we have seen evoked in other societies where multiple cultures have not merged into multiculturalism and separate languages have not coexisted as multilingualism. These failures at integration litter the global landscape.

In his argument, Huntington gives considerable emphasis to the unique qualities of Anglo-Protestantism, including "Individualism and the Work Ethic" as they have contributed to economic success in the West. Much of the criticism fails to convince when it is given in the context of ideological pluralism, without any empirical basis for arguing that successful societies can shed the very attributes that made them successful, or that cultures cannot be differentiated in terms of their potential for achievement and sustainability.

Integration and economic movement in Malaysia have suffered through many of the same circumstances projected by Huntington. Majority Malays and minority Chinese are divided socially, economically, and politically, but especially by language. The Chinese control roughly two-thirds of the economy.

Beginning in 1981, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad sought to transform Malay culture in order to enable it to compete with the Chinese on even ground. He wanted them to be more like the Chinese, as he expressed in his 1969 book, The Malay Dilemma. He sought to get the Malays to be more industrious and increase the use of Malay language at the expense of English. However, he sent tens of thousands of Malays to study the sciences, computer technology, and business practices in the U.S. He made some headway in adapting Malay culture to the Chinese standard, but not much.

Huntington similarly treats English as one language and Spanish as another, without comparative context. He also fails to follow his own example with culture and does not discuss English in terms of its quality. All languages are not equal. It long has been recognized that languages shape thinking through vocabulary and grammatical structure. Ultimately, they shape behavior, including economic behavior.

Huntington correctly points out that multiple languages prevent communication across otherwise diverse groups living in the same space. He notes that English is the language of law and legal thinking in the U.S., and the language of democratic participation. Yet, he fails to recognize that English is a language of precision, has a vocabulary expansion capability unrivaled by other languages, has an established technological content, and is the language of international business. This is neither language chauvinism nor nativism. Check the statistics.

Roughly 12% of the world's population is reasonably proficient in English. Writing in The New York Times a few years back, Gregory Rodriguez noted a projection that, by 2050, "Half the planet is expected to be more or less proficient in English." If this is the case, and Thai businessmen are negotiating with their Japanese counterparts in English, as they do already, where will the American Spanish speakers be in this exchange? Looking at the broader job opportunities in the U.S. and the world, Hispanic immigrants can read the English handwriting on the wall.

Malaysia pressed hard in the 1970s and 1980s to build a common culture among its very diverse population by requiting Chinese and Indians to learn the Malay National Language and translating English textbooks to Malay. They found that the former colonial language, English, was the language of international business and education and they still had to choose that door. Realism and practicality prevailed, and today, English is as widespread in Malaysia as it was under the British, maybe more. Another plus is that outsourcing of U.S. technical jobs has yet another home, along with India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Singapore, and the Philippines.