There are certainly many things that I can say about myself, where should I even start?
I am from Silesia, and I am Silesian. I am a staunch regionalist, communitarian, and even separatist. I was heavily inspired and impressed by the views and works of Leopold Kohr and E. F. Schumacher, and I agree with these fully. So for me Silesia is Silesian, and not Polish, and I wholeheartedly support any autonomist or separatist struggles here.
Apart from Silesian, I also speak Polish, German, English, Dutch and I am learning Spanish. I studied German studies (Germanistyka) in the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, and that is where I learned both German and Dutch. I especially like talking in German, I find it quite an expressive language!
I deeply believe that our cultures and languages are our lifeline. The beauty of diversity lies not in a world where everything boils down to individual differences - if everyone would speak the same language, then what would there be really? This would mean that we would have the same thinking patterns, be under the same cultural differences, and intentionally or not, create a dystopian, uniform world. Linguist Peter Trudgill drives the point home:
The barriers to communication are a good thing. I have suggested previously (Trudgill 1975) that such barriers, although penetrable - it is perfectly possible to learn languages other than your native language - help to ensure the survival of different language communities. Thus the separation of the world’s population into different groups speaking different Ianguages helps the growth of cultural diversity, which in turn can lead to opportunities for the development of alternative modes of exploring possibilities for social, political and technological progress.
That is, a world where everyone spoke the same language would not only be a very boring place; it would also be a very stagnant place. If the entire population of the world consisted of native speakers of English, it is probable that we would not only all be watching Dallas and drinking Coca Cola, we would also all tend to have the same values, the same ideas, and the same world-view. If it is the case that diversity leads to progress, this is a frightening scenario indeed. (Similar views are expressed in Labov 1972 and in Muhlhausler 1987).
Words to live by:
A large part of the current wave of social discontent is expressed, at least in countries classified as areas influenced by ‘Western culture’, in populism with a clear ‘right-wing’ face. This does not exclude countries that are very modern according to the categories adopted as a reference point by domestic liberals and leftists. There are few exceptions, and even they usually drift to the right in terms of form and the non-economic sphere, such as the left-wing Slovak Smer or the initially ‘centrist’ Czech Ano.
Although every country has its own specific characteristics, which the ‘internationalist’ dogmatists like to forget, social phenomena usually have cross-border causes and effects. Today, populism is ‘right-wing’ firstly because of the far-reaching collaboration of the left with (neo)liberal elites and the decreasing number of differences between them.
Secondly, because the upper classes and the lifestyle they promote are no longer right-wing Victorian but hedonistic and ultra-consumerist (with the left following suit by promoting the total commodification of even human sexuality), and the lifestyle of the working class, although far from the vision of right-wing reading material, remains much more conservative, not on doctrinal grounds, but on an intuitive and reflexive basis.
Thirdly, in a world of constant change driven by capital and its interests, the working class tries to grasp any footholds of constancy and immutability.
Fourthly and finally, in a world of hyper-individualism, social anomie and the breakdown of all communities and the devastation of the commons, which are trends as beneficial to capital as they are generated by its transformations in the sphere of the means of production and the organisation of labour, ‘right-wing’ identities - such as nation, religion, etc. – are today the only collective points of reference and emotions, especially in the face of leftist defection from communitarian to individualistic and, at best, micro-community positions (it is worth noting the decline in the Western world such phenomena as left-wing nationalism or left-wing movements appealing to religiosity, even if non-orthodox).
For the working class, hyper-modernity increasingly means not liberation from ‘traditional ties’, but loneliness, lack of support from anyone or anything, the disappearance of solidarity and being a speck of dust blown about by the ultra-capitalist winds.
You must be logged in to post a comment.