HANNAH ASHWELL considers whether global English is creating harmony or hindering the wider world

There is no doubt that the English language has become what Gray describes as a ‘power in itself’ further claiming that ‘English in this way [is] somehow agentive […] [seen as a] powerful [force] propelled by human agents acting on behalf of commercial and governmental organisations […] actively involved in promoting and sustaining the position of English in the world.’ (2012: 162) However the jury’s out as to whether this promotion of English across the world is to aide underdeveloped countries, such as that of post-genocide Rwanda or, alternatively use the promotion of English by ELT organisations as a way of continuing to propel the aims ‘of a multi- billion pound industry’ (Gray, 2012, p.162).

Looking firstly at the British Council ‘a unique semi-state body […] government funded […] [and] a registered charity’ we can see examples of how English is conveyed as helping countries in crisis back on their feet. For example, the annual report of 2009-10 highlights help given to Afghanistan by facilitating ‘10,000 English teachers develop […] skills’ (Gray, 2012, p.141), as well as ‘helping President Kagame’s country, Rwanda, to replace French with English as the medium of Education’ (Gray, 2012, p.142). However,  how far can it be claimed that this aide is for the best interests of these countries?

As well as performing the role of a charity, the British Council also ‘functions as a business’ (Gray, 2012,p. 141), and as a result it seems fair to question how far this is a priority for the organisation. In helping President Kagame to establish English as the language of education are they really helping rebuild his country? I would argue that there is some validity to the idea that it is impinging on Rwanda culture. Williams advocates this idea by referring to ‘a small dominant establishment in African countries [which] ensures that they […] have access to high standards of English while inadequate education systems mean that this is largely denied to the majority, [known as the process highlighted by] ‘Myers-Scotton (1990) [as] ‘[e]lite closure’(2011, pp 166- 167). In this way is the ELT industry prioritising our economy over the human needs of poorer, undeveloped countries?

As a result of selling English as a commodity it serves to devalue some countries over others. According to Gray (2012, p.138),  ‘Canadian scholar Monica Heller (2002) suggests, languages and language learning are […] viewed in largely economic terms […] [meaning] some languages come to be seen as worth more than others.’ Consequently the English language displays disadvantages which serve to hinder other countries cultures. This is highlighted by writer Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o in 1986 when recounting his experiences of English as the language of education in Africa. He said that ‘[l]iterary education was now determined by the dominant language […] language and literature were taking us further […] from ourselves […], from our world’ (cited in Jenkins, 2009, p. 194). And so English can be seen to be hindering undeveloped countries cultures in this sense.

In more recent times the growth of the ELT industry has led to features of ‘cultural imperialism’ being associated with it, in the respect that as it is viewed as a cultural commodity that dominates much like that of the film and music industry. Advertisements for ELT organisations take advantage of this link incorporating ideas associated with a westernised celebrity culture, with ELT textbooks often adopting celebrity related discourses, known as ‘aspirational content […] [focusing] largely on spectacular and personal […] success, celebrity lifestyles, cosmopolitanism and travel’ (Gray, 2012, p. 87). And so they sell English not only as a skill but as an opportunity to gain a successful way of life, to ‘younger people […] [seeing] it [as] increasingly valuable for personal growth.’ (ICEF, 2015) This is irrespective of where these young students come from; does this not hinder the development and sustainability of other cultures?

I can acknowledge that English does have its advantages in holding the position of lingua franca for the world and being the language of education, in the sense that it unifies to a degree and helps advance the chances of less developed countries and their education systems. Ultimately however these benefits are outweighed by the lack of access to acquire English as a skill across all levels of societies, creating elite groups. As well as this, the current highly commercialised nature of the ELT industry leads me to question who the real winners are here. Are we not impinging on other cultures by selling our own? And is the English as a commodity highlighting that the priority is profit over providing proper aide? The debate continues…

HANNAH ASHWELL, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK


Gray, J. (2012), English the industry. In: A. Hewings and C. Tagg (ed.) The Politics of English: Conflict, Competition, Co-existence. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 139-163.

Gray, J. (2012), “Neolibralism, Celebrity and ‘Aspirational Content’ in English textbooks for the global market” from Block, David, Gray, John and Marnie Holborow, Neoliberalism and applied linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 86- 113.

ICEF. (2015). The Brazilian market for English language learning. Retrieved February 16, 2016.

Jenkins, J. (2009). World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. (2nd ed). Routledge English Language Introductions. London: Routledge.




One thought on “HANNAH ASHWELL considers whether global English is creating harmony or hindering the wider world

  1. Victoria Anderson says:

    Hi Hannah,

    Your blog entry made for a very interesting read.

    I agree that a speaker of the English Language would be more likely to have better opportunities than those who do not. Learning a second language provides a higher possibility in having a ‘better’ life, regarding chances for greater income, job opportunities, and a stronger education. However, who said that knowing English can give this to somebody? I found the quote from Gray, concerning the value of the English Language, particularly poignant and I do agree, how can one language be considered more valuable than another? Communication is the main point of learning a language and so if people can already communicate without English, who is to say that it is needed in that community? Your point about the advertisements for the ELT organisations was interesting and I believe that using the appeal of the western culture is a very arrogant way to encourage people to learn English. I agree with you in that I do think it greatly hinders other cultures, something that should be celebrated instead of shunned. This is, overall, a very complex debate and although there are pros and cons to both sides, I just hope that if English is taught in small communities, then cultures will not be destroyed in the process.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s