Help Us Stay Paywall-Free

We rely on readers to keep our website open to all. Help sustain a public space for collective reasoning and imagination—make a tax-deductible donation today.

Image: Piter2121 / Adobe

October 3, 2021

How the Far Right Learned to Love Multilingualism

—and other essays on the use and abuse of language, from Chomsky to Duolingo.

Who pays for cheap language instruction? In July 2020, a trio of scholars posed the question to Boston Review readers, lamenting the lack of public interest around the working conditions of gig-economy language teachers—despite a massive rise in online language learning during pandemic lockdowns. “Cheap language instruction is possible because of the same things that give us cheap coffee, budget car rides, and bottom-dollar high-street fashion,” they wrote, “that is, outsourcing, underpaid Global South labor, and the gig-economy.”

This was the third time that one of the coauthors, Yuliya Komska, wrote for Boston Review about the politics of language—which also forms the topic of today’s reading list. In 2019 she explored a widespread misconception, exacerbated by the English-only bigotry of Make America Great Again and Brexit, that xenophobic, racist, or oppressive ideologies are always doggedly monolingual—and, conversely, that multilingualism exclusively serves the goals of democracy, pluralism, and open-mindedness. Instead, she shows how right-wing politicians have demonstrated savvy with using translation to spread their messages. “Far-right language politics,” she writes, “has long been a languages politics, a politics of translation.” And what about battling against such language? In another essay, Komska shows how, just as the Germans learned after World War II, combatting fascist language is harder than just deleting offending terms. 

And it’s not just the right that has a language problem. Earlier this year, politics professor Adam Przeworksi explored how the left started using the language of neoliberalism, and why it lost the battle of visions as a result. “Suddenly they adopted the neoliberal verbiage about ‘trade-offs’—between ‘equality and efficiency,’ between ‘equality and growth,’ he argues. “The world became full of ‘dilemmas’ and ‘trilemmas.’” Obfuscating jargon has also plagued the mainstream media, as Larry Glickman shows in his perennially popular essay about how the media went from describing things as “racist” to using the watered-down term “racially tinged.” Colin Dayan also rails against euphemisms, decrying how barriers that annex Palestine are often called “security fences” by Israel and its sympathizers. “Talking about Gaza is like talking about God,” she writes. “We face the ineffable. We cannot talk about what we see.”

Our reading list also turns to the education system in Israel, with a recent essay offering a Palestinian mother’s perspective of what isn’t taught in Israeli schools. While the segregated schooling system means that Palestinians can use Arabic as the language of instruction in classrooms, they are also required to spend many more hours on the study of Hebrew—and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Similar debates are underway in Nepal, where schools increasingly use English as the language of instruction. But in the name of preparing them for a globalized world, non-mother-tongue education often fails the students it aims to help, Eleanor Hildebrandt argues. At the other end of the schooling spectrum, Joel Christensen explores the culture wars surrounding the study of Latin, and argues that doing so simply for “beauty” and “pleasure” threatens to make classics into a mystery-cult rite. “There is a real-world danger to this aestheticizing attitude toward linguistic study,” he writes. “It is not enough to learn Latin alone, to excise it from its place and time for merely personal use.” 

We end on a completely different note, turning to Chomsky on linguistic theory. In “What We Know,” he explores how knowledge is determined by our internalized language systems, as distinct from the culturally specific symbolic systems (English, Spanish) to which the term “language” usually refers. While the Charles River would still be a river if its course were reversed or if it were divided into separate streams, we would also intuitively understand it to no longer be so if “its surface were hardened by some near-undetectable physical change, a line were painted down the middle, and it came to be used for driving to Boston (in which case it would be a highway)… What human beings know is remarkably intricate and subtle.”

Yuliya Komska
Far-right leaders often call for one nation united under one language. At the same time, they have always been good at using translation to spread their politics.
Yuliya Komska, Alberto Bruzos Moro, Roberto Rey Agudo
Media stories praising online language learning as an inexpensive way to take a “vacation” during COVID-19 have expressed astonishingly little curiosity about the conditions under which gig-economy language teachers labor.
Lawrence B. Glickman
How we went from “racist” to “racially tinged.”
Eleanor Hildebrandt
Schools in Nepal increasingly use English as the language of instruction. But in the name of preparing them for a globalized world, non-mother-tongue education often fails the students it aims to help.
Yuliya Komska
As Germans learned after World War II, combatting fascist language is harder than just deleting offending terms. Can we find a creative solution that serves today’s needs?
Joel Christensen

The beauty of the language should not keep us from reckoning with its history.

Noam Chomsky
On the universals of language and rights.
Adam Przeworski

Leaders of the left abandoned the language of transformation in the 1980s—at a cost. Can it be regained?

Muzna Awayed-Bishara

A Palestinian mother’s perspective.

Our weekly themed Reading Lists compile the best of Boston Review’s archive. Sign up for our newsletters to get them straight to your inbox before they appear online.

Boston Review is nonprofit and reader funded.

We believe in the power of collective reasoning and imagination to create a more just world. That’s why we’re committed to keeping our website free and open to everyone, regardless of ability to pay. But we can’t do it without the financial support of our readers.

Help sustain a public space for collective reasoning and imagination, without ads or paywalls:

Become a supporting reader today.

Get Our Newsletter

Sign up to get vital reading on politics, literature, and more sent straight to your inbox.

Most Recent

The post-work movement reckons with reproductive labor.

Rachel Fraser

Melvin Rogers and Neil Roberts discuss the difficulty of keeping faith in a foundationally anti-Black republic.

Melvin Rogers, Neil Roberts

The law occludes the abhorrent violence routinely perpetrated by states in the name of self-defense.

A. Dirk Moses

We can't publish without your support.

For nearly 50 years, Boston Review has been a home for collective reasoning and imagination on behalf of a more just world.

But our future is never guaranteed. As a small, independent nonprofit, we have no endowment or single funder. We rely on contributions from readers like you to sustain our work.

If you appreciate what we publish and want to help ensure a future for the great writing and constructive debate that appears in our pages, please make a tax-deductible donation today.

"An indispensable pillar of the public sphere."

That’s what sociologist Alondra Nelson says of Boston Review. Independent and nonprofit, we believe in the power of collective reasoning and imagination to create a more just world.

That’s why there are no paywalls on our website, but we can’t do it without the support of our readers. Please make a tax-deductible donation to help us create a more inclusive and egalitarian public sphere—open to everyone, regardless of ability to pay.