Perspectives on the role of English

4.1
Indigenous value-systems
Several writers have noted that English, even when used in an international
context, is not the value-neutral language that Wardhaugh (1987: 15) (Appendix) claims
it to be (Uemichi, 1984: 6; Kaplan, 1987: 145; Brown, 1990: 13; and Phillipson, 1992,
cited by Bisong, 1995: 123). My response to this is that of course English has a set of
attendant values. That is its purpose as a language, as defined in section 2. However,
those opposed to the spread and influence of EIL often make the generalised assumption
that exposure to English results in the corruption or complete displacement of the local
value-system which constitutes a major part of the indigenous culture.
Is this assumption a valid one ? Kachru (1994: 147) asks whether the use of EIL
for modernisation necessarily entails ‘Westernisation’ ? In other words, does English for
social development require an acceptance of the Centre’s religious (i.e. mainly Judaeo-
Christian), economic (i.e. capitalist), political (i.e. democratic ?) and social values ?
Phillipson (1992: 166) (Appendix) would reply along the lines that Periphery societies
have little choice in the matter; that those values are foisted upon them by the Centre,
through English. Others dispute this: Uemichi (1984) in Japan; Adaskou et al (1990: 7)
and Hyde (1994) in Morocco; Bisong (1995: 131) in Nigeria; and O’Reilly (1998: 82-83)
in Bulgaria, all show that it is possible to use English without having to subscribe to its
values. Al-Haq and Smadi have also demonstrated that, among Saudi Arabian university
students at least, the use of English does not threaten Islamic values:
[They] agree that learning English is neither an indication of Westernization nor
entails an imitation and admiration of Western cultural values.
(Al-Haq and Smadi, 1996: 313).
Examination of the data on which these conflicting arguments are founded is quite
revealing. Phillipson’s (1992) data come from interviews with 8 British ELT
professionals, various governmental and official reports and the published work of a
handful of language scholars (Ricento, 1994: 421-2), some or all of whom are clearly

---

7
already allied to his own viewpoint. Conversely, as the above references indicate, those
who oppose Phillipson’s work generally do so based on knowledge of specific Periphery
contexts and often on data derived through empirical research at grass-roots level. At the
very least, this raises doubts as to how well Phillipson is informed of the reality on the
ground.
It is conceded that exposure to the values inherent in EIL has the potential to
modify local values, though that does not mean that they always do so, or that where they
do, that the modification is necessarily detrimental to that society or its culture. It is
entirely conceivable that the Centre’s values may even have a reinforcing effect on local
values, as in the case of other Judaeo-Christian, capitalist or democratic societies. Bisong
(1995: 131); Warschauer (2000: 515); and Kennedy (2001: 80) all point to the need to
account for the 'human agency that shapes how English is used in different circumstances'
(Warschauer, ibid.). In other words, people are capable of using languages eclectically
and flexibly. The same capacity for eclecticism exists with respect to value-systems,
particularly among those in minority groups, (Montgomery, 1995: 67). People living in a
foreign country and speaking the local language, often operate in this fashion. For
example, Westerners speaking Japanese can conform to Japanese sociolinguistic values
of (what seems to Westerners extreme) politeness, tolerance and patience in the company
of Japanese people, yet revert to a Western norm when talking with fellow countrymen.
Also, my own (Japanese) wife is often conspicuously ‘unJapanese’ in her behaviour
when visiting England. She is able to complain in a very forthright fashion to a
shopkeeper about a faulty product she has bought, then revert back to Japanese
sociolinguistic norms of indirectness and circuitous explanations upon meeting Japanese
friends in town. This goes beyond acculturation. It is the ability to switch back and forth
between value-systems.
Therefore, rather than viewing value-systems as absolutes, in terms of ‘one-or-
the- other’ or ‘yours-or-mine’, it might be better to think of them as an additional
‘attitudinal resource’ that can be called up when needed. In this light, the Centre’s values
are no longer automatically seen as detrimental, but as a potential enhancement, a
development, supplementing rather than supplanting indigenous values. Periphery users
of English need to be aware of the values which English holds, so that they can be used
as an additional resource, but it is not necessary to actually subscribe to those values.