This is such a useless egoistic move from the french, just accept that english is the lingua franca.
I think it’s sad that that you don’t seem to realize that it’s a problem that most of the content we are exposed comes from a single culture.
As for the move, it’s totally useless, and if they wanted to be strongest against english they should have said “we’ll only accept communication in french or german” but that would have meant most of the communications would have been in german.
I don't think GP's desire to minimise language barriers among 27 co-operating governments implies that they are oblivious to cultural bias.
I do think the latter is an issue worth addressing, but this is probably not an effective or appropriate way to do it.
Well, you have to start somewhere. But I agree that the only thing it's likely to do is annoy the heck out of everybody.
I think they said French because if they had said French or German the other bodies might have used only German just to annoy the French back.
But you're not going to find them in the US [much] if they're not in English
Here's some data from several years ago (couldn't find anything more recent in a quick scan) - https://screenville.blogspot.com/2009/06/production-world-ci...
Here's a related Quora post: https://www.quora.com/What-makes-British-television-at-least...
Using English exposes people to a certain way of thinking that is more linked to a set of cultures or traditions. It's an undeniable fact, both semantics and linguistics teach us that.
But if the aim is to help politicians think from a different perspective, French is a bad choice. If that was the purpose, a reasonable choice would be to opt for languages related to cultures of more practical rationality.. German or Scandinavian languages
Of course it's the French politicians who have the nerve to try impose their language. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that French culture is one of the most pedantic and nationalistic in Europe, to the detriment of the other members.
That's essentialist nonsense. How are German or Scandinavian cultures more « practically rational » in an empirical sense ? Is there anything to it beyond short-sighted stereotypes ? That's not even getting to the fact that rationalism and positivism have French input stamped all over it, with German philosophy generally pulling in the exact opposite direction.
I did not mention positivism, which is not necessarily embedded in the political environment we have today.
The main contributions in rationalism and empiricism are not French.
German philosophy is not generally positivist, but that’s not what I wrote.
Are you certain of this? I can think of many contributions to rationalism and empiricism made by French speakers that I feel are important. The metric system, for instance, was in large part a French project [01].
Here are a few French rationalists and empiricists that came to my mind when I read your comment:
Alain Aspect
Contemporary exerimentalist known for work in quantum optics [02]
Louis de Broglie
Quantum physicist known for pioneering wave-particle duality [03]
Nicolas de Condorcet
Mathematician and leading figure of the enlightenment [04]
Rene Descartes
Philosopher and mathematician known for the Cartesian co-ordinate system [05]
Pierre de Fermat
Mathematician known for his eponymous last theorem [06]
Joseph-Louis Lagrange
Mathematician and astronomer known for Lagrangian mechanics and Lagrange points in astronomy [07]
Pierre-Simon Laplace
Polymath known for Laplace's Demon, among much else [08]
Antoine Lavoisier
Experimental chemist who named hydrogen and oxygen [09]
Blaise Pascal
Mathematician and inventor of an early mechanical calculator [10]
Louis Pasteur
Chemist and microbiologist who developed the germ theory of disease and invented Pasteurisation [11]
Henri Poincare
Mathematician, theoretical physicist and engineer [12]
Urbain le Verrier
Astronomer, discoverer of Neptune [13]
Full disclosure: I'm English.
[01] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_metric_system#T...
[02] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Aspect
[03] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
[04]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Condorcet
[05] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes
[06] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_de_Fermat
[07] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph-Louis_Lagrange
[08] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Simon_Laplace
[09] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal
[11]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
Hindu and Greek philosophers, Islamic golden age, Italian renaissance, British empiricism, Scottish Enlightenment, Austrian/German empiricism, US Pragmatism, ...
I'm not trying to neglect French rationalists and empiricists. Of course they exist, ... together with the many other scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, ... from many other cultures. Each single culture contributed less than the sum of the others simply because rationalism and empiricism are the fruits of global knowledge.
When detailing reasons for pushing the adoption of French in Europe, Macron acknowledged the work of Victor Hugo, who "believed that French would be the language of Europe, would today perhaps be a little disappointed" and promoted the re-examination of past colonialism in Africa, seeking to use the language as a tool to "reset a complex history in the continent".
The reasons for pretending the use of French in Europe are nationalistic. In an incident, European diplomats defined "overly dramatic, a statement of anger that clearly need no translation" when a French diplomat left his chair empty after the Council decided to use only-English in a working group.
This development was foreseen in 2017 (pre-Brexit) when Mario Monti said "The EU, when the UK leaves, should take the decision of upgrading the use of the English language in EU affairs. I think we should upgrade the ways we use English and it should become the language of the EU. I exaggerate a bit - there should be a bit of French. It will be a very appropriate gesture to the UK. It would help us Europeans to become more competitive by using fewer languages."
The statements of Mario Monti was pragmatic, it defines an issue and propose a solution. The behaviour of French diplomats is stubborn and nationalistic.
Disclosing too that I'm Italian.
I understand there is a common perception that French academic culture has literary preoccupations, but I don't think the idea that those preoccupations have disadvantaged French science holds up to much scrutiny, much as one might want it to after listening to a fruitless monologue about Derrida.
It's heartening to me that there are people in the EU arguing in favour of pragmatic gestures of friendship to the UK as you point out; I'm all for it and hope it is continued and mutual, regardless of whether the UK is legally part of the organisation.
I lived in the Netherlands, worked for an international organization and I still have a lot of friends who works (or worked) in Brussels. Few comments:
1. The level of profentiency in foreign language of people working for the European institutions is orders of magnitude higher than readers of HN. Not too mention translators. It's not rare to meet people speak 6 languages totally fluently. Switching languages for some working documents is almost a non-event beyond signaling. There will be zero impact for the rest of us.
2. I totally support a Europe where people speak foreign languages beyond English.
The appeal to the popularity of English is entirely circular. Obviously you're exposed to more English if nobody makes an effort to use another language. Not an argument against changing that state of affairs.