200 million French speakers can't be wrong

One of the gnawing concerns I have had about the move to France is the general and long-term usefulness of the French language to us as a family. OK, yes it will be useful in France, and it will certainly and necessarily be PC for us to embrace, especially if we don't want a year of French waiters spitting in our food. Toni and I have resigned ourselves to the fact that we must be able to handle the basics and then some in the native tongue. I have visions of a mundane but not altogether uncomplicated situation arising that requires some degree of language dexterity to deal with - a broken toilet, let's say, or perhaps trying to bail one of our kids out of jail (quick, get Nadine on Skype!. We even downloaded a couple of courses of Rosetta Stone (still unused).

But I have been hard pressed to mentally justify the academic investment in our family learning the language for any thing other than our stay in France, whatever length that may be. I mean, when are we ever going to use French when we leave France, other to impress people at cocktail parties? (Toni argues this same point when the topic of learning how to drive a manual transmission car comes up - a challenge she sees as far greater and with even less value than learning French.) This despite the fact that I actually have a rudimentary working grasp of French myself and absolutely no grasp of any other language. Mine is more of practical concern than anything related to the well-promoted (by the French) aesthetic and cultural value of the French "mother tongue" (as Madame Precnard at CIPEC calls it), or of learning a second language in general.

In the part of the world where we originate, now live and will undoubtedly return, Spanish is by far the more dominant second language (in many places, primary). It therefore seems to me that, especially for our kids, if we are committed to any degree of a bi-lingual existence long-term, our energies would be better focused on learning Spanish. And in fact, Savannah has been taking Spanish lessons at night, along with our island friends who will move to Barcelona in parallel with our move to Aix. I believe it is Savannah's not-so-subtle protest against the move, not any long-term vision on her part. But at least she will be able to communicate with 95% of the workers at Miami Airport now.

But my sensitivities to what, if any, flavor of bi-lingualness we should embrace as a family were altered somewhat by an article in today's NY Times (which I had the rare pleasure of reading in all its liberal glory of its grimy and unwieldy print format during a flight from Dallas to San Francisco this morning. Double bonus: in-flight internet access allows me to post this from somewhere over the Rocky Mountains, addressing a bona fide criticism of far too infrequent P2P blog postings leveled on me by #2 Jacquie just minutes after she picked me up at DFW last night. Who knew an American Airlines experience could result in such a combination of pleasure and productivity? But I digress).

So the NY Times article - found here - talks about the state of the French language, both within France and elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa and the Caribbean where it is still relatively common. In fact, it reports that 200 million people speak French in the world today, and only 65 million of them actually live in France. It goes on to bemoan the growing use of English by French political leaders and other elite, a trend seen by some as a sign of surrender of French influence and authority in the world (ummm, didn't that happen 6o years ago?). In the article, there are well articulated and philosophical defense from everyone from Sarkozy to African politicians about the need for the French language to endure and thrive, as part of what the French president calls "the battle for cultural diversity in the world." While his statements may reflect more of the cultural battle going on within his own country, his point is well taken.

It is a logical -- although not altogether intuitive - argument that in an age of increased 'globalization,' which would seemingly imply 'sameness," diversity in cultures and how one expresses oneself becomes even more critical. I believe that we all do need a sense of self and cultural identity, even as we sip Starbucks in Shanghai and eat Big Macs in Brussels. So I can appreciate the enthusiasm by Francophone to want to defend and even proliferate the use of their language.

But being American, we have it easy in the sense that English is the de facto language standard of globalization. The downside to that is that it also holds us back in terms of being motivated to learn a second language or understand other cultures. And in fact it is American culture which often seems to suffer from the blandness of universal acceptance, especially when one travels abroad and get sense of the richness and uniqueness of other cultures (of course many of my friends from home don't even have passports, underscoring the fact the fact that globalization may, ironically, last penetrate certain corners of the USA. A shepherd in the African Sahara will know who is on American Idol long before a lot of Americans will know how to find the Sahara on a map).

American culture and the English language, arguably the most ubiquitous in our globalized world and certainly the most 'practical,' are frankly boring to us Americans.

All of this leads me to think that maybe we should throw the practicality of learning a 'useful' language out the window, and strive to be more Francophone in our commitment to learning a second tongue. If nothing else, it will come in handy if we have plumbing problems.