The Greatest Threat to Asia’s Poor

How post-colonial theory traps impoverished Asians

In 2012, cultural theorist Robert Phillipson was invited to talk in South Korea about linguistic imperialism. He was paid several thousand dollars for his time, and his speech was attended by many students at Korea University, one of the most prestigious private schools in that country.

At its core, the talk, entitled “English Language Imperialism? History, Fact, and Fantasy” was a simple one: enforcing English teaching and the acquisition of English was an act of western imperialism that endangered the identities of non-English speakers. The talk, given by an Englishman who teaches in English at Copenhagen University in Denmark, was of course in English; Prof. Phillipson cannot speak Korean.

Much less prestigious and poorly paid is this man, who encourages people to teach English in impoverished nations. His rationale is also simple: by teaching English to the poorest people in non-English speaking countries who cannot afford private English lessons, you are opening employment opportunities to the poorest in those countries that would otherwise be unavailable. Jobs in multinational firms, or even office jobs in local companies.

All South Korean companies require a TOEIC score to be submitted with resumes when people apply for jobs, and both hiring decisions and pay are decided upon how good the applicant’s English is (even if the job requires no English).

When Prof. Phillipson tells wealthy and well-educated Koreans that English is an act of imperialism, he is appealing to their egos. He is also helping them consolidate power. The only way for the poorest in South Korea and many other developing countries to succeed in business, particularly in Asia, is to learn English and use their English knowledge to get good jobs or start ventures that can attract foreign capital.

Yet Phillipson is fully acting with an intellectual pedigree that justifies his actions. As a post-imperialist railing against imperial influence, it makes sense to criticize the use of English, one of the most imperialist languages spoken by people who have committed genocide against millions.

Yet in doing so, he is helping the rich of these nations, who will learn English regardless of what he says. If his talks encourage policies that limit English language instruction, the richest will find less competition in the middle class job marketplace and in new ventures. In other words, Phillipson will help them consolidate money and power by limiting opportunities for the poor in those countries.

His good intentions are turning him into a pawn for the 1% in countries where corruption is more commonplace and social mobility more restricted.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I do not believe Prof. Phillipson is a bad person (although a tad egocentric), but I do believe he is doing terrible things.

If you want to help the poorest and most vulnerable in the world, teaching English is not a bad choice.