I DISSENT: Single-Lingualism
Practicality in global communication is a delight, and a single language that is commonly known aids in this endeavor. The economic and technological dominance of the English language is evident in its use in international commerce and diplomatic relations, and this, in itself, is not problematic. However, what is problematic is the fact that most American-English speakers assume that other countries will, invariably, cater to their desire not to learn a second language. And so, my critique of single-lingualism is framed as such: it is narrowing.
Only 20% of the American population can speak more than one language, and even fewer can hold a fluent conversation in that second language. Not only is multilingualism not encouraged in the United States, it is disregarded and made to seem like a luxury for the wealthy, and a sign of poverty for those who are not affluent. The idea of learning a second language is considered extraneous in the U.S., and in a job market where being multilingual is not seen as necessary, many people quickly abandon the hope of learning another language.
The erosion of cultural identities and local languages is amplified in single-lingual spaces, where cultural homogenization is nearly glorified. Dominant languages marginalize other languages and cultures, shaping power dynamics and reinforcing inequalities. Language is not merely a means of communication; it is a marker of identity and power. Those who control the dominant language have greater access to political, social, and economic capital, while those who cannot understand that language are excluded from those opportunities.
English’s dominance is evident in technological spaces, where fluency is required to fully participate in the larger culture. Fewer opportunities are provided to those who do not speak the language, as apps like X, YouTube, and Facebook default to English upon installation.
Still, single-lingual English speakers are at a disadvantage. By disregarding the need for multilingual communication, the United States risks falling behind on the global stage and limits the opportunities of its workforce to domestic jobs. In a nation-focused context, this makes sense, but travel outside of the United States and you will quickly learn that the American attitude toward others catering to your language deficits is uncommon and, frankly, irritating in everyday life.
For example, on my first day in Spain, I bought some jamón and bread at a grocery store amid overwhelming culture shock. When the cashier asked if I wanted a bag, her Spanish sounded unlike anything I had ever heard. She rolled her eyes and switched to English, asking again if I wanted a bag. In that moment, I realized how my language deficits were holding up not just my experience, but hers as well. My inability to communicate—though I was jet-lagged and exhausted—forced her to slow down and adjust to me. And that, in essence, is the curse of single-lingualism. It’s not just inefficient; it disrupts the flow around us, creating unnecessary friction and missed opportunities.
Multilingual communication is no longer just a luxury—it’s an essential tool for personal, social, and economic growth. By ignoring the value of learning multiple languages, we hinder our ability to engage with diverse cultures, limit our opportunities on the global stage, and perpetuate inequalities that single-lingualism can often exacerbate. To thrive in the modern world, we must move beyond the assumption that others will cater to our linguistic comfort zones and recognize that embracing multilingualism is key to unlocking a more inclusive, efficient, and equitable future.
