The primacy of English and the Anglosphere

English has increasingly become the dominant lingua franca - the language that people who have different native languages by default use to communicate. In my view, it’s great that we’ve come to have such a language. In the early 1900s, it seems that, e.g. many educated Europeans felt that they had to learn at least English, German, and French to communicate with key people. Today, English is normally sufficient. That means that they have to invest less in learning languages. Also, they likely become better at English than they would on average have been at English, German, and French, had they had to learn all three languages. I hope and believe that this development will continue, so that English becomes even more dominant.

English-speakers often complain that they’re bad at other languages, such as French or Spanish, and compare with how good non-Anglos often are at English. But the comparison doesn’t quite work, in my view. Continental Europeans are usually highly motivated to learn English, precisely because it is the dominant lingua franca. Moreover, in many countries, most music, films, computer games, and so on, are in English, which helps. The converse is obviously not true for English-speakers.

A better (though still imperfect) comparison is between how good Brits are at their second language (e.g. Spanish, French, or German) and, e.g. Scandinavians are at their third language (again, typically Spanish, French, or German). Just like Brits, Scandinavians typically don’t have to learn Spanish, French, and German (though it surely can be useful, depending on personal circumstances, and of course also enjoyable). And they don’t encounter those languages on a daily basis, like they do with English. In line with that, the difference in how good Brits and Scandinavians are regarding Brits’ second language and Scandinavians’ third language is likely far smaller than the difference between them regarding their respective second language (which of course is English in the case of Scandinavians). English is by far the foreign language that Scandinavians are best at. (I don’t know whether Scandinavians are on average better or worse at their third language than Brits are at their second language.)

Learning a language well is hard work, and most people will only do it if they really have to. It also helps if you encounter the language frequently, as most Europeans do with English. People typically don’t learn languages for which neither of those things are true. And that’s the case regarding, e.g. Spanish, French, and German, for most Brits and Scandinavians alike.

Discussions about the role of English often seem driven by perceptions of unfairness, or something akin to it. Some non-native speakers find it unfair that they have to invest so much in learning English (without ever really reaching native level) whereas native English speakers don’t have to learn their language. And some English speakers seem to agree with those sentiments. I suspect that’s partly why they complain that they’re bad at other languages.

I agree that native English speakers are at an advantage relative to others. But compared with many other inequalities in life, this one seems minor. I think we’re best off just ignoring that inequality. We shouldn’t promote other languages for fairness reasons, but should promote English - since that likely is best from an efficiency perspective. Nor should we compensate non-English speakers in other ways, since that seems too complicated. Rather, we should simply accept this minor undeserved inequality and get on with it.

***

Just like the English language is dominant, so is Anglo-Saxon culture. People outside the Anglosphere consume a huge amount of Anglo-Saxon music, films, and books. They go to the Anglo-Saxon world to work and study. They’re hugely influenced by Anglo-Saxon intellectual and political discourse. Media reports on what’s going on in the Anglo-Saxon countries all the time (particularly the US, but the UK also gets more attention than you’d expect based on its population.) The converse is not true: non-Anglo culture does not have a big influence in the Anglosphere.

As a Swede living in the UK, it seems to me that Anglos often underestimate the extent to which this is true. Others may be aware of it, but don’t want to say it for fear of appearing arrogant about Anglo cultural dominance.

In non-Anglo countries, some complain about this, and argue that their compatriots are too focused on what’s happening in the Anglosphere. Sometimes that’s true. But more often, I think it’s the other way around. People discuss issues that are intrinsically international on a national level (Covid is the latest example where that’s been done far too much). Instead they should turn to world-leading experts, who more often than not work in the Anglosphere. We want to have more of a global discussion. It will inevitably be conducted in English, and Anglo thinkers will typically (and partly for that reason) have a leading role.

I also think that non-Anglos should be even more inclined to go the Anglosphere to work and study than they are. Most professions and businesses have their centres in the Anglosphere, and there are typically many benefits to going to those centres. So if it fits your life-plan in other ways, I think it’s an option to seriously consider.

The Anglosphere is, in several ways, the centre of the world. Some might wish some other culture would have got more influence (though in my view, the Anglosphere beats several of the main competitors quite clearly). But that’s not too important in any case, since it’s unlikely that the Anglosphere’s dominance will cease (at least in the West), whether we want it or not. So it seems that our actions should be based on that premise.