THEME ARTICLE

16 • The Development Education Journal Volume 13 Number 3 2007

IntroductionThis article explores the role of English within the context ofcontemporary economic globalisation. Is English reinforcingexisting power relationships? Does it conform to the system-maintaining preferences of globalisation? Or can it assist inbuilding better understanding of the social, economic andpolitical forces which shape lives throughout the world, andcan it ultimately contribute to reform?

In the southern hemisphere English is often seen as agateway to improved educational opportunities and betterprospects for individuals and for entire economies. But formany, English is a former colonial language and the languageof contemporary globalisation. Many people involved withDE, including practitioners in developing countries andmembers of the DEA in Britain, regard globalisation withsuspicion, or even hostility. The DEA is essentially reformist,seeking to address issues like poverty and underdevelopment.Could English, a key medium of globalisation, conflict withthese aims?

Post-empire, English remains the language of the rich andpowerful, learned and used by elites worldwide. It is a tool ofinternational business, corporate expansion, internationalnegotiation, and marketing. It is also the language ofAmericanisation, accompanying the symbols of manypowerful and emblematic international brands.

English is spoken by well over a billion people and now forthe majority it is not their native language (Crystal, 2003). Butthis article argues that, despite its international reach andassociation with political and economic power, Englishlanguage education can and should promote global issues:economic and environmental sustainability; linguistic andcultural diversity; non-discrimination; and the principlesenshrined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Two arguments are considered:

1. The negative threat from globalisation and the relatedcentrality of English.

2. Recommendations concerning the responsibilities ofthose involved in English language education, and theimplications for those involved with developmenteducation and the DEA agenda in particular.

Contemporary globalisation: English as threatContemporary neo-liberal globalisation is a phase in capitalistdevelopment. Neo-liberalism, a product of the Reagan-Thatcher era, contributed the core of the so-called WashingtonConsensus. This favoured privatisation, free trade, thecomplete deregulation of key economic sectors, especially

telecommunications and finance, and reduced stateintervention (Sweeney, 2005). It underpinned the StructuralAdjustment Programmes accompanying World Bank loansand IMF consultancies, where English has also played a keyrole. The World Bank has always paid lip service to linguisticpluralism, but in reality it has privileged English. This isunfortunate since combating poverty and empoweringcommunities needs to be a bottom-up process, effective at agrass roots level. It must involve local languages, and sorequires a commitment to linguistic pluralism (see below).

Advocates of neo-liberalism have been inconsistent inpractising what they preach, especially free trade and reducedstate involvement. The United States (through NAFTA), theEuropean Union, and other blocs such as the Cairns Groupand OPEC, are often highly protectionist. Both inside andoutside the World Trade Organisation (WTO) they regularlysustain their own advantages through taxation, governmentcontracts and subsidies, and in so doing they secure thebacking of major corporate interests, including the media.They remain the gatekeepers to the riches of the globalisationPromised Land, still overwhelmingly concentrated in thenorthern hemisphere. Northern interest in the South is mainlyabout access to – and control over – natural resources.

Globalisation presents tough challenges to educators andpolicy makers in developing countries because it assumes thatthese countries need to trade internationally and embracewestern capitalism in order to share in the benefits ofmodernity. This might be fine if it were not complicated bythe associated tendency to reinforce dependency. In otherwords, unequal power relationships become entrenched as thebenefits are shared unequally. Political and economicadvantage falls mainly to already privileged elites.Multinational corporations and other market interests such ascorporate lawyers, financial consultants, currency speculatorsand fund managers reap rich rewards (Strange, 1996). Thismeans that for DE practitioners in the South a paradoxemerges: Less Developed Countries (LDCs) can only developby playing the game according to rules established by thealready powerful, and even so the benefits are not universal.

Meanwhile, the internet, legal and accounting norms,music, fashion, food, and the movie industry ensure thatglobalisation extends well beyond mere economy.Globalisation has become a widely dispersed culturalphenomenon, the juggernaut of post-postmodernism, ‘achaotic drift of new technologies’ (Gray, 2002:175). Itspredominant language is ‘English as a global language’. Yetthis term is questionable: while there are around 1.25bn

Globalisation, economic development and the role of English

Simon Sweeney identifies the role that English plays in economic globalisation and suggests how Englishlanguage teaching could be transformed to support the principles of development education.

THEM

EA

RTI

CLE

The Development Education Journal Volume 13 Number 3 2007 • 17

THEM

EA

RTI

CLE

speakers of English worldwide, around 80% of the world’spopulation do not speak English. Secondly, the phenomenonwe call globalisation plays mostly in the northern hemisphere,where over 80% of trade and investment occurs, and wherepower is overwhelmingly concentrated. Multinationalcorporations speak to us through their brands, the corporatesymbols of capitalism, and they use English as their workinglanguage. English dominance is absolute. It exerts a form oflinguistic hegemony similar to the political and economichegemony of the United States since 1945.

Threats to the pre-eminence of English may emerge,perhaps from Chinese, and from demographic changes in theUSA where Spanish could overtake English as the first nativelanguage within a generation.Nevertheless English will remain thelanguage of the elite, and in China theelite will know Mandarin, but alsoEnglish. The fact that there are nowmore non-native speakers of Englishthan native speakers led some tosuggest that English had undergone deculturisation, free fromgeographical and cultural association. Kayman (2004) rejectsthis. On the contrary, the hinterland of English becomes‘communication itself’ rather than a geographical place. Itscultural message becomes bound up with the entire processof globalisation, with more power than the British Empireever achieved. The wordless logos of McDonalds, Shell,Mercedes Benz and Nike are imbued with a subliminalmessage that globalisation is good, a liberating phenomenon,an irresistible but benevolent force.

The spread of English is both a cause and a consequence ofeconomic globalisation. It is also the dominant language ofmajor international institutions that shape the world economyand of the corporations driving the global economy. It is thelanguage on which the sun never sets. English dominatescyberspace, where ‘slightly more than 50% of all internetusers are English native speakers, 78% of all websites are inEnglish; 96% of all e-commerce sites are in English’ (TheLancet, 2000). English presents a powerful challenge to localidentity. Dore refers to this in Sri Lanka where English inschools denoted secularism, in contrast to the Hinduassociations of Hindi (Dore, 1997). The US Embassy inBaghdad has only 6 fluent Arabic speakers in a total staff ofaround 1,000 (Iraq Study Group Report, 2006). This is surelya shocking indictment of the presumption of linguistic andcultural hegemony, to say nothing of the US strategic andpolitical agenda in Iraq. It seems bizarre to imagine that‘hearts and minds’ might be won through the medium of aforeign language associated with an occupying force.

All the above demonstrates the association between Englishand power. It reveals how English is a system-maintainingforce. This is a problem for those involved with developmenteducation. How can we pursue a reformist agenda when anecessary tool to achieve reform – English – is so stronglyassociated with powerful elites and all that runs counter toreform?

English and the reformist agendaTurning away from English is not an option. In post-independence Malaysia the government ended the centrality ofEnglish to the education curriculum but the change was laterblamed for the country’s sluggish economic performance, andthe policy was reversed (Nunan, 2003). In newly independentBangladesh, there was resistance to making Bangla themedium of instruction because English promised betteremployment opportunities (Imam, 2005). In Ghana localcommunities preferred children to be educated throughEnglish, judging that this would help career prospects (Mfum-Mensah, 2005). For educators worldwide English is seen as atool of empowerment. This is also true for the DEA support

for Action Aid’s Reflect programme,which uses education in a wide range ofcontexts to empower people indeveloping countries. For communitiesand individuals seeking to gain agencyin a globalising world, knowing Englishis essential.

However, English language education should adoptcommon cause with the global issues agenda implicit in thework of the DEA and other reformist agencies. It also needs tobe much more humble in advocating English as a dominantmeans of communication. It should therefore conform to fourprinciples:

1. Curricula should address global issues like peace, justice,human rights, sustainable development, absence ofdiscrimination, and support for diversity.

The English Language Teaching (ELT) industry shouldembrace the DEA perspective, raising awareness of therelationship between developed rich countries and developingcountries, especially the association between lifestyle choicesin the North and impact on the South. It should try to increaseunderstanding of the economic, social, political andenvironmental factors which shape peoples’ experience. Itshould assist in developing the skills, attitudes and valueswhich help people to gain control of their lives and effectchange. It should build a more just and sustainable world inwhich resources are shared more equitably. All theseobjectives conform to the principles highlighted by the DEA(www.dea.org.uk). This is a politicising agenda for a sector(ELT) that has consistently preferred the bland and theuncontroversial, so no-one should be under any illusions aboutthe extent of the task.2. The rejection of any notion of ‘standard English’,

especially one associated with native speaker models orpowerful elites.

This is difficult given the gateway status in the developingworld of UK examination boards and the cultural power oftheir curricula and publications. ELT has tended to promotenative speaker ‘standards’. Now it should focus on mutualintelligibility between speakers and accept that differentcommunities have different varieties of English (Graddol,2006). A description which avoids implications of any

...the hinterland of Englishbecomes ‘communication

itself’ rather than ageographical place.

18 • The Development Education Journal Volume 13 Number 3 2007

THEM

EA

RTI

CLE

hierarchy or standard is ‘English as an InternationalLanguage’ (EIL). This encapsulates how English is usedacross and between different communities (Siedlhofer, 2003).

3. English language education must extend beyond elites.

English should be offered to all at all levels of education,private and public. This will boost access and help to establishwidespread competence in the language. It will empowercommunities.

4. English should promote multilingualism.

Crystal reports that 96% of the world’s population speak just4% of all known languages. Some 25% of all languages havefewer than a thousand speakers. The loss of languages is athreat to diversity, identity, history, and the sum of humanknowledge (Crystal, 2000). English of course is not the onlylanguage that has significantly impacted on others. Spanish inLatin America has replaced many indigenous languages. In1871 only 3% of the population of Italy spoke Italian, and stillItalian is decimating local dialects. Curriculum design shouldencourage multilingualism, so that English coexists with othertaught languages. The role of the media is also significant:there should be more exposure to other languages. Access totelevision in English assisted the establishment of English inScandinavia even thirty years ago, and now with satellitetelevision the same is happening elsewhere.

Suresh Canagarajah has questioned the orthodoxy aroundEnglish language teaching in developing countries, appealinginstead for a much more heterogeneous and locally managedapproach, where diversity is encouraged and local socio-economic needs are taken into account. This would avoidideologically motivated elites imposing curricula and materialsill-suited to local circumstances. Vernacular monolingualismis not an option, but taking ownership of learning English inways that serve local communities certainly is. Canagarajahargues for the parallel promotion of local cultures, languagesand identities at the same time as English is recognized asnecessary for fully engaging with the contemporaryintellectual and commercial space. This is ‘a forceful critiqueof the global spread of English and ELT, beginning with itsmilitary imposition by colonial powers and extending to thesubtler neo-imperialist activities of western culturalorganisations and aid agencies’ (Canagarajah, 1999:40).

Ultimately Canagarajah’s argument is a discourse aboutpower. He recommends much more discussion about localidentities, power and ownership, the problemetising of culturaland ideological content, and engaging much more with locallanguages, encouraging code switching, and includingdiscussion in the native language.

Conclusion: the challenge for DE and Englishlanguage educationContemporary globalisation often appears to concentratepower and leave many permanently disadvantaged if notmarginalised altogether. Development education and Englishlanguage education, both in Europe and in developing

countries, must aim to empower individuals and theircommunities to better shape their futures.

Cultural diversity and linguistic pluralism are preciousresources threatened by aspects of contemporary globalisation.Language education must defend diversity and promotemultilingualism. This is just a small part of the multifacetedapproach required to achieve greater social justice andsustainable development. It should be part of a generalisedcommitment to reform international institutions to enablethem to preserve heritage, protect the environment and bringbenefits to all humanity rather than just privileged elites.

This requires effective multilateral effort that addresseslocal needs and involves local communities. The Englishlanguage must be a tool of empowerment and not remainsimply a means for elites to preserve privileges.

If English language instruction is embedded within theframework outlined in the second part of this article, it canindeed contribute to a reformist agenda that will affect powerrelationships and bring real improvement to peoples’ lives. Itcould be that English will then move beyond its system-maintaining role in contemporary globalisation.

ReferencesCanagarajah, S (1999) Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in EnglishTeaching, OUP: Oxford.Crystal, D (2000) Language Death, Cambridge University Press:Cambridge.Crystal, D (2003) English as a Global Language (2nd edition),Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Dore, R (1997) Diploma Disease, University of London Institute ofEducation. London Graddol, D (2006) English Next: Why global English may mean the endof English as a Foreign Language, British Council: London. Gray, J (2002) Straw Dogs, Granta.Iraq Study Group Report (2006) www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.htmlImam, S R (2005) ‘English as a global language and the question ofnation-building education in Bangladesh’ in Comparative Education 41(4)471-486 Kayman, M (2004) ‘The state of English as a global language:communicating culture’ in Textual Practice 18(1) 1-22 The Lancet, (2000) 356 (9239) 21 October, p.1451Mfum-Mensah, O (2005) ‘The impact of colonial and postcolonialGhanaian language policies on vernacular use in schools in two northernGhanaian communities’ in Comparative Education 41(1) 71-85 Nunan, D (2003) ‘The impact of English as a global language oneducational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific Region’ in TESOLQuarterly 37(4) 589-614 Siedlhofer, B (2003) A concept of International English and relatedissues: from ‘real English’ to ‘realistic English’, Council of EuropeStrange, S (1996) The Retreat of the State, Cambridge University Press:Cambridge.Sweeney, S (2005) Europe, the State and Globalisation, Longman:Harlow.

Simon Sweeney is Head of Programme for MAInternational Studies at York St John University, York, UK.He also lectures in Education and Development at theUniversity of York. He is a widely published ELT author.www.simonsweeney.net