Zawaya

First we must define what national interest is, then we must teach languages that can lead to the progress of society

By: Baya Gacemi

“What do you call someone who can’t speak any foreign languages? Answer: an American.” It is a telling joke. The Americans, who rule the world, do not need to learn other people’s languages. Yet everyone learns English, the international language of science and technology, which is essential for a successful career or high-level studies.

As a result, even former British colonies teach and speak the language without any qualms. So while a language is the vehicle of a culture, it is first and foremost a vehicle of economic strength.

But while English, which is now more closely associated with the United States than with Britain, is too “useful” to be set at odds with local languages, this is not true of other languages. For instance, French remains too closely bound up in intellectual terms with a particular territory – France – and above all with a certain period: the colonial era. This is why the people of the Maghreb have certain reservations about the teaching of French.

In Algeria, the role of French has been the subject of controversy since independence was gained in 1962. The debate has always been of an ideological rather than a scientific nature and has been waged between those who support the teaching of French – albeit timidly, since they feel uncomfortable about being associated with the former colonial power – and the pro-Arabic lobby, who see themselves as the only true nationalists and seek to preserve popular culture.

Speakers of French, who make up the élite since they were the only people who were literate when independence was achieved, are stigmatised as the real holders of both political and economic power. The fact that scientific and technical disciplines are always studied through the medium of French means that French-speakers have greater access to top professions, whereas Arabic-speakers are confined to the fields of literature and the humanities, where there are often no openings.

There is also another divide: with Arabic-speakers tending to come from rural areas and French-speakers being mainly city-dwellers, the two groups have always regarded each other as irreconcilable rivals.

These factors mean that all discussion of the issue is clouded with suspicion and that there has never been a serious or level-headed debate about which languages should be used and taught, since one camp claims to be defending the national interest and the other claims to be championing culture. But should they not first agree on what these two concepts actually represent?