In chapter 6, Van Parijs analyses the notion of ‘linguistic diversity’, by borrowing, amending and augmenting the notion of biodiversity. What this discussion especially shows, to my mind, is that linguistic diversity has several dimensions, some of which may even be in tension; and that it has to be distinguished from other notions with which it may easily be conflated or confused (such as multilingualism (6.3).

This conceptual analysis is needed in order to address the question which Van Parijs (p. 188) takes to be the central one of this chapter:

In the normative framework proposed so far, a territorially differentiated coercive linguistic regime is the only justified way of containing these diversity-reducing pressures. Should linguistic diversity be protected more than this or indeed resolutely promoted, whether for its own sake or because of its contribution to some valuable objective irreducible to linguistic justice as characterized so far?

In developing his answer to that question, Van Parijs starts by noting that “many people find linguistic diversity a plain nuisance” (188), since if we don’t speak eachother’s language (or a common language), we can’t understand eachother (which explains why from an economic point of view there is a case for linguistic unification, since that promotes fluid economic exchanges).  Yet can we make a case for linguistic diversity? In section 6.5, Van Parijs looks at a number of arguments (apart from the clearly insufficient corporatist arguments that can be made by linguists and translators). The most promising is the argument that linguistic diversity is “the firmest and increasingly the only serious protection” of cultural diversity (192), but even here it is unclear what the net effect is given that linguistic barriers also prevent people from choosing a specific cultural way of life. Van Parijs concludes that arguments from this corner “remain fragile” (193).

In section 6.6, Van Parijs asks whether linguistic diversity might not prove a powerful obstacle to the idea of egalitarian distributive justice which he has defended in his book. He starts by noting the results of some empirical studies which have shown a negative correlation between linguistic diversity and proxies for the degree of economic redistribution and/or economic solidarity. A common language may be needed for identification of the better-off with the worse-off, for an effective mobilization of the worse-off of their struggle, and for a public discussion on how to shape the public institutions that must give rise to that redistribution or solidarity.

Van Parijs highlights the effects of linguistic diversity at the local level in 6.7, where he discusses how competence in a shared dialogue is needed for a common demos, and how the teaching of minority languages at schools may lead to segregation which is not inductive for his notion of egalitarian distributive justice and parity of esteem.

However, at the inter-local level, the analysis is more complicated. This is a long argument, but basically it boils down to the economic argument  that since the production factor capital is mobile, but under linguistic diversity labour is not, it would be optimal if there were greater economic insurance against unemployment and other risks against the loss of income from labour. This is what the welfare state would normally do, but the problem is that ” a competitive transnational market turns states into firm-like entities, under constant pressure to downsize their redistributive ambitions” (201). If redistribution and solidarity become more difficult to organize at the level of individual states, one would hope that they would be organized at a higher level (like the EU), but there linguistic diversity makes the identification and communication which are needed to realize this difficult. In addition, this tension is aggravated by “the natural association between inter-local linguistic diversity and political decentralization along linguistic borders” (202). Following the well-known principle of subsidiarity (which states that political decision making should always be granted to the lowest level of political competence, unless there are strong reasons not to do so), a “tension unavoidably arises between the centralized organization of solidarity and the decentralization of competences in such files as education or public health, …” (203).

At the global level, there is thus a tension between inter-local linguistic diversity, and trans-local economic solidarity. This is where Van Parijs’s argument for the spreading and democratization of competence in the lingua franca comes in, since it will generate a trans-national demos, without, however, substituting the national ones.

Van Parijs concludes the chapter by speculating how such a world would look like, and believes that justice as parity of esteem will keep legitimizing the entrenchment of a considerable degree of inter-local linguistic diversity. However, he closes on a note that will be sobering to many:

The reason why linguistic diversity must be preserved is not that it is intrinsically valuable nor that a persuasive case has been made for its having, all things considered, beneficial consequences. The reason why linguistic diversity must and will be preserved is simply that it constitutes, for the foreseeable future, a by-product of linguistic justice as parity of esteem.

This last quote provides a nice bridge for me to formulate a comment I have on this chapter. Van paris is critical of the arguments given in favor of the intrinsic value of linguistic diversity, and also of the importance of linguistic diversity for cultural diversity and hence cultural freedom.  I am (a) not sure I am convinced by the conclusion regarding cultural freedom, and (b) I think it cannot be concluded that no other arguments in favor of that intrinsic value are possible. Here’s one that came to mind: the esthetic value of having access to different languages. I agree that for texts in which the use of language is mainly functional, hence to make an analytical point, the language itself may not make a big difference (although it’s really easy to make bad translations, and one also sometimes needs to invent new words if one wants to translate properly). But I don’t think that’s the case for a text that has an evocative, poetic style (fully or in part).

An example: I vividly remember reading Hermann Hesse’s ‘Narziss und Goldmund’ in Dutch, which I got from a friend. I happen to be able to read German well, and earlier had read fiction books in German (I think even also another book by Hesse). I just felt that something important was lost in the translation, which had to do with the sound of the words, the color and the shades. Comparing the Dutch translation with the German original proved that point. Clearly, we’re moving here in the direction of the arts — and I think that’s the claim which I would want to defend: that for some uses of language, including for poetry and fiction, it may matter a lot in which language a text was written, and something of esthetic value gets lost in translation. If that is true, then perhaps we have (the start of) an argument for the intrinsic value of linguistic diversity.