Richard ALEXANDER * Can International Business English Teaching Be Culturally Neutral in an Age of Corporate Globalization? Abstract. The business community holds English tobe indispensable, much as it argues that 'globalization' is inevitable. Neoliberal developments in international higher education are encouraging the gatekeeper function of English. Coupled with 'communication skills' English is shaping this 'global world'. The discourse of English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication is widespread, leading to sustained English influence on other languages and cultures. The adoption of Anglo-American interaction norms is setting limits to interculturality. English as an academic lingua franca is diminishing local cultures. Same implications for ELT are discussed. Nations of a common core for English are invalid in the face of new varieties. Teachers need to accept their responsibility as educators and to reflect upon their current roles in a corporately globalized world. 1. Who says the spread of English is inevitable? Why would or do claims about the cultural neutrality of an internationally utilized language, or, more specifically, the notion that English is "culturally unencumbered" come tobe articulated? Why is much discussion about the lingua franca usage ofEnglish (often implicitly) couched in optimistic and affirmative terms? There are doubtless good, technical, even objective, reasons for this. Some of these will be enunciated below. However, observers of the discursive aura, or in micro-linguistic terms of the semantic prosodies, surrounding phrases like international English, business English, world English cannot surely fail to note the all-pervasiveness ofthe positive. How the cultural embedding of English within a corporate globalization discourse can be denied is a question we address. Many people talk up how positive English is for business in the globalizing world. Let us cite one ofthe usual suspects, namely, The Economist. Here it is in Panglossian mode (see also Economist 2002 and 2003) when it comes to the English language (2004: 23): "In central Europe, as in much of the world, knowledge of English has become a basic skill of modern life comparable with the ability to drive a car or use a personal computer." lt is unsurprising and practically a truism that organs of the business community underline in such a fashion the presumed indispensability ofEnglish. The next step is to speak ofhow 'inevitable' the spread ofEnglish has become, how necessary international Korrespondenzadresse: Prof. Dr. Richard J. ALEXANDER, Univ.-Prof., Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, Institut für Englische Wirtschaftskommunikation, Nordbergstr. 15, A-1090 WIEN. E-mail: richard.alexander@wu-wien.ac.at Arbeitsbereiche: Weltsprache Englisch, US-Wirtschaft und Weltwirtschaft, Fremdsprachliche Wirtschaftskommunikation, Computergestützte Korpuslinguistik. JFLulL 35 (2006) Can International Business English Teaching Be Culturally Neutra/ ... ? 151 business English is, much as the notion of 'globalization' is similarly so described. It is at this point that thinking people, rather than copycat propagandists, should however pause momentarily and ask who is saying this and why. Many of us are faced with everyday shifts in higher education (HE) curricula that are affecting our professional lives and those of our students in far-reaching ways. Is it not worth pausing briefly and asking how these micro-level changes are linked in with wider processes of economic, social and political transformation? And, moreover how the social changes are related to systems of power? Let us first turn to how the association between English teaching and the attitudinal set associated with enterprise culture is being articulated. 2. English teaching and English in business education generally Clearly once English is conceptualized as a 'basic skill of modern life' it is a short step to dovetailing it with notions of enterprise culture, marketization and human capital. In this connection a general look at the macro-level developments in higher education would appear to be called for. How neo-liberal education theory is articulated and sustained internationally has been provocatively but tellingly analyzed by SPRING (1998: 183) who argues: "The World Bank does not recognize arguments that people might benefit through personal happiness and fulfillment from a higher education." Instead human capital ideas resonate through the World Bank's documents. A duster of terms and phrases such as 'improving external efficiency' is tobe found. The direction is clear: "In the framework ofhuman capital thinking, the goal ofhigher education is to get ajob". One consequence for the World Bank of emphasizing the marketization of higher education is channelling potential students by means of increased tuition fees into the labour market in a more 'efficient' fashion. A major hidden agenda is the encouragement of a private higher education system. One way in which this is already being felt in Europe is by expecting even public universities to seek and ultimately depend on external financing. The far-reaching effects on European universities, including the massive changes under way, for example in Germany and Austria, are contextualized by WRIGHT (forthcoming): "Intemationally, the purpose of formal education is being reformed in the light of new world orders of capital, work, cornmunication and knowledge, to which many countries have responded by asserting new forms of nationalism and new concepts of citizenship, and by introducing new methods of goveming and managing, not least in their public services like education." Against this background the way in which English has attained a gatekeeper function in education (both secondary and higher) is well attested in both Europe and Asia. See QIANG/ W0LFF (2004) Oll China, for example. How can such practices, now underpinning the World Trade Organization (WTO) also, be viewed as 'culturally neutral'? Especially ifthey are formulated or repeated in a Western HE setting they are likely to be affected by deep-seated historical and cultural lFLuL 35 (2006) 152 Richard Alexander motifs (incorporated into these institutions ifnot always in the individual psyches oftheir members), which are the legacy of colonialism and imperialism. lt is worth recalling that the forerunner ofthe WTO, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), was the brainchild ofBritain and the United States towards the end ofthe 2 nd World War. They setup the rules goveming the opening oftrade (JOHNSON 2004: 259). However, we are not just talking about merely British or American traits. Holland has a brutal colonial history as long as Britain's. Dutch liberalism was meant only for the Dutch. The history of the Dutch East India Company and its strategy of destroying the spiee shrubs in Indonesia to keep the prices high is well known to economic historians. And after all, the ethos ofthe French revolution was never meant tobe pluralistic. Its essential proposition was based on totalitarian uniformity (SARDAR 2005); it excluded and continues to exclude till today, as the 2005 explosion ofthe French 'banlieues' demonstrates, the 'subject' population ofthe colonies. A number of commentators have drawn attention to how even the discourse ofEnglish as a Foreign Language (EFL) seems more like a denial of uncomfortable unanalyzed traits than a genuine overcoming ofthe past (PEGRUM 2005). 3. The culture ofcorporate globalization? Arguments for English seem to parallel the propaganda for corporate globalization. Many of the former invariably originate from the 'discourse of anglicism', i.e. the colonial policy to educate through the medium of English because it introduces the native Other to Western knowledge and culture. This is placed in its historical context and linked to current discourses by PENNYCOOK (1998: 131): "Towards the end ofthe twentieth century [... ]in a wholly changed political context in which the global spread ofEnglish has become not so much apart of colonial control but rather part ofneocolonial exploitation (see Phillipson, 1992), English and Anglicism have re-emerged in a new light. The discourses of Anglicism still adhere to English, but now to a new English, a global English, and an English in popular demand." The ubiquitous notion of 'globalization' seems tobe used by everyone. Yet we are faced by a myriad of interpretations, characterizations and definitions. GEORGE (2004: 6) has sought to pinpoint the essentially economic nature of 'globalization': "Since we seem tobe stuck with the word [... ] it's helpful to put one or several adjectives in front of globalisation so that its real nature is better defined. People who are fighting against its harmful effects often speak of 'corporate-led', 'finance-driven' or 'neo-liberal' globalisation. In the United States, some call it 'neo-conservative' ." She helpfully focuses on the essential feature for us: "'Corporate-led' is an accurate description" (GEORGE 2004: 7). The encyclopedic work ofNoam Chomsky over the past four decades on political and economic aspects of US foreign policy is also extremely helpful in understanding neo-liberal globalization. CHOMSKY (2000: 199) has analyzed the key aspects of corporate globalization in its economic guise, known as the Washington Consensus, most pointedly for our purposes: FlLuL 35 (2006) Can International Business English Teaching Be Culturally Neutra/ ... ? 153 "From a more fundamental perspective, we could describe it as an array of megacorporations, often linked to one another by strategic alliances, administering a global economy which is in fact a kind of corporate mercantilism tending toward oligopoly in most sectors, heavily reliant on state power to socialize risk and cost, and to subdue recalcitrant elements." JOHNSON (2004) has emphasized the construction ofthis phenomenon, quoting Manfred STEGER who "says that it amounted to 'a gigantic repackaging' oftwo centuries of classical liberalism, relabeled 'the new economy' ." JOHNSON is particularly apt in showing how the inevitability discourse is used manipulatively (2004: 260): "Perhaps the most deceptive aspect of globalization was its claim to embody fundamental and inevitable technological developments rather than the conscious policies of Anglo-American political elites trying to advance the interests of their own countries at the expense of others." This discourse bristles with adjectives like 'irresistible', 'inevitable' and 'irreversible'. JOHNSON quotes President Clinton, saying in 1999 (2004: 260): "Today we must embrace the inexorable logic of globalization", adding yet another epithet to the thesaurus of corporate globalization apologetics! 4. Business English and the culture of globalization The discourse of globalization, englishization and English as a passport to business is noticeable to most people who want to look or listen. The British journalist and writer, Jeremy SEABROOK (2004), writes discemingly on its consequences in Asia. SEABROOK pinpoints explicitly "the ideologically-charged pedagogy ofBusiness Studies". He goes on to document how significant language (i.e. English) is in this 'global world' (2004: 184): "A new generation has leamed a new lesson. They have heard the seductive language of global business, and believe that this will be their passport to individual advancement, wealth and freedom. The imagination of a whole world of young (mainly) men all over the world has been seized by a new hope, which has come upon them with the force of a revelation." The sense of espousing to be or become apart of a 'greater proj ect' resonates poignantly when SEABROOK quotes a young man in Dhaka studying for an MBA: "I hope to obtain a management post in a company. I shall be highly qualified for this. I know English, which is the international language. The world is becoming smaller. We must compete or die" (2004: 184). Interestingly, this connects with the thesis that OSTLER (2005: 556) advances in explicating how world languages grow: "Ifthis book has shown one thing, it is that world languages are not exclusively the creatures of world powers. A language does not grow through the assertion of power, but through the creation ofa ! arger human community." Tobe sure, in the next sentence he does allow that "[c]learly, military or economic might can act as strong inducements to community growth." In view of this situation it comes as no surprise to find that globally sold business FLuL 35 (2006) 154 Richard Alexander English textbooks take the link between English for business and globalization almost for granted. Consider, by way of illustration, the introduction to Market Leader. We find the following (COTTON [et al.] 2000): "In the real business ofusing language for example in business Englishthere is no separation between the language used and the task engaged in. [... ] The language work should as far as possible mirror the language demands the academic discipline makes on students." This is a claim that is in keeping with many content-based BE courses in tertiary education. The authors make a further interesting assertion, ofinterest in this context, namely, "If you are a student of business, the course will develop the communication skills you need to succeed in business and will enlarge your knowledge of the business world." But, as we shall see later, the real issue is what the phrase "communication skills" refers to. Arguably the specific understanding of 'communication' and 'skills' implied here are themselves products of globalization. For CAMERON (2002: 71 ): "[T]hey are related on one hand to changes in the organization of work driven by intensified economic competition, and on the other to changing conceptions ofknowledge in the wake ofthe inforrnation revolution". CAMERON (2000) provides a perspicacious analysis of the wave of 'communication training' sweeping through the English-speaking world ofwork. She uncovers the ideological thrust of the practices they promulgate. Hence it seems no wonder that these 'values' and prescriptive pattems are also influencing the business English (and general English) norms that such textbooks, implicitly endorse. One of their major tasks for the foreign markets they penetrate consists in affirming similar values, beliefs and behaviours. 5. English as lingua franca (ELF) for business purposes But, wait: is it not a self-evident truth that being able to employ a lingua franca for business and other purposes is of great benefit? Does the use ofEnglish as a lingua franca (ELF) not prove it is culturally neutral? For many observers it is an acknowledged fact of life that English is a lingua franca here to stay and spread more widely still. As WAR- SCHAUER (2000: 512) states: "The increased global contact brought about in the new networked societythrough international tourism, business, scientific exchange, and media places a premium on the ability to communicate in a lingua franca." That this position has been constructed and sustained, often by the TESOL or TEFL profession itself, has been clearly analyzed by PHILLIPSON (1992) and PENNYCOOK (1994, 1998), among others. PENNYCOOK (1994) shows how 'the discourse ofEnglish as an International Language' has fulfilled a matter-of-fact function in the colonial and now post-colonial world. lt is so matter-of-fact as to be self-evidently 'natural'. He mentions Fishman's characterization of English as 'not ideologically unencumbered' and the lFLuL 35 (2006) Can International Business English Teaching Be Culturally Neutra! ... ? 155 widespread assertion ofthe well-intentioned and benign utility inhering in it. Both 'imperialists' and liberals employ such notions. This holds good also for the localists who favour the proliferation of many Englishes and assign them cultural neutrality. Together with Pennycook, this author holds such opinions to be either blandly optimistic or deliberately ingenuous or ignorant, or both simultaneously. Evidence that Business English as a lingua franca (BELF) does not result in cultural neutrality comes from work in Scandinavia. LOUHIALA-SALMINEN [et al.] (2005: 417) comment on the adoption ofEnglish as a Lingua Franca after a cross-border merger oftwo companies: "[A]lthough BELF facilitated communication in some respects for some people, it by no means eliminated communication problems; neither can BELF be taken tobe 'neutral' or 'cultureless'. Rather, it can be seen tobe a conduit ofits speaker's communication culture. This was seen in our analysis of discourse produced in the two merged companies, where differences linked to cultural perceptions could be identified." Arguably, from a technical or technocratic position, the emphasis placed on the lingua franca (ELF) role of English serves a useful ideological purpose. After all it makes life for everyone easier tobe able to use English as. a lingua franca! Middle class and uppermiddle class schoolchildren and students, and military officers (in NATO, UN peace keeping operations, etc.), international corporate cadres, independent business people, students doing a period of study abroad, 'ordinary people' are all engaged in it! One might cite the example of JAMES (2005) where young people of different nationalities come together through the medium ofELF. This is not tobe gainsaid surely? Notice in this connection, moreover, that the discourse of intercultural communication is not only articulated by 'traditional' proponents of the phenomenon, like language teachers, educationalists or peace-loving democrats. Today the percolating down to business administration syllabuses is far advanced. (The work reviewed by CAMERON (2000) brings this home to us.) Intercultural training is also on the increase in the English-speaking business world. lFFE (2005: 295) observes that a growth in intercultural training in the business world seems to be substituting for foreign language learning in the English-speaking world. The singing of the praises of intercultural communication, covertly implying using English and its self-evident benevolence, has already achieved the status of a truism that is 'truer than true' ! lt is practically presented as one small step on the way to condoning linguistic hybridism and 'liberal', feel-good views ofthe universal sisterhood ofwoman! lt has tobe stated firmly, however, that one function that the repetition of such scenarios has in certain settings is to diffract considerations of the macro-structural role that ELF plays into a 'personal' and interactional context. But, but, but! Despite the millions oflow-level, personal and inter-subjective encounters in ELF (even BELF), there is a significant set ofELF and related practices which go beyond the micro or even the meso-level influences on individuals and contribute to the sustaining and extension of a neo-imperialist set-up, as we have outlined. PHILLIPSON (2003) has discussed the ways this framework affects language policy decisions in the EU. lFLuL 35 (2006) 156 Richard Alexander 6. Diffusion of English and the deculturation of other languages? The inroads English is having on other languages and cultures are quite considerable. The profusion of anglicisms in most European languages is a case in point (see ANDERMAN/ ROGERS 2005). Take the example oflexical influence on Finnish, a 'minority' European language (MOOREN ARANTOLA 2005). PART AIT AAVITSAINEN (2005) comment on the frequent use of English in the speeches of Finnish politicians. One can also adduce the use of English and English-inserts into Germanin the German-speaking world when academics and scientists are interviewed and talk on radio and TV and at conferences. One explanation for such diffusion on an individual basis is social-psychological. Perhaps it is worth thinking of the code-switching between national languages and English such as PAHTAITAAVITSAINEN (2005) chronicle for Finnish speakers as an instance of a broader behavioural set, namely that of having and employing the 'proper sign equipment'. What GOFFMAN (1959: 36) says ofthis and its use in furthering social mobility is worthy of consideration: "Commonly we find that upward mobility involves the presentation of proper performances and that efforts to keep from moving downward are expressed in terms. of sacrifices made for the maintenance of front. Once the proper sign-equipment has been obtained and familiarity in the management of it, then this equipment can be used to embellish and illumine one's daily performances with a favourable social style." A knowledge or at least a smattering of anglicisms may well be one potent form of the 'proper sign-equipment' available today. 7. How intercultural are Anglo-American interaction norms? However, an index ofthe 'success story' of 'englishization' without even using English can be adduced from the observations of the international diffusion of certain discourse norms of interacting without displacing local languages as noted by CAMERON. This area of 'diffusion' is based on Anglo-American 'models' and seems tobe affecting interaction norms in an even more deeply reaching process than borrowing anglicisms. CAMERON (2003: 28) characterizes this trend: "lt is not a question of telling people 'you should stop speaking your own language and speak English instead'. Rather it is a question of saying, 'by all means use your own language, but according to the cultural norms of an English-speaking society' ." CAMERON looked at the work of communication experts (2002). They propagate the cultural norms ofthe English-speaking world. She notes (2003: 29): "Some themes recur consistently in prescriptive materials by experts dealing with the subjects of interpersonal communication." This is what Cameron found: 1) Speech is preferable to silence. Reticence is construed as a lack of openness to other people, (contrast this with Finnish discourse patterns! ); 2) a preference for directness over indirectness; 3) a preference for ways of speaking that signal egalitarian social relationships; 4) emphasis on eo-operative lFLulL 35 (2006) Can International Business English Teaching Be Culturally Neutra/ ... ? 157 as opposed to competitive or agonistic gemes of speech; 5) a preference for self-disclosure or 'sharing' your feelings as a mark ofyour honesty and sincerity. In Cameron's estimation dissemination of 'global' communicative norms and gemes, like the dissemination of international languages, involves a one-way flow of expert knowledge from dominant to subaltern cultures. We can quote CAMERON (2002: 70) in this connection. She writes: "I know of no case in which the communicative norms of a non-Western, or indeed non-Anglophone society have been exported by expert consultants. Finns do not run workshops for British businesses on the virtues oftalking less; Japanese are not invited to instruct Americans in speaking indirectly." Against the background of the emphasis in ELT on making language classrooms more interactive and communicative this trend would appear to imply or to contain some serious implications for intercultural education, I would argue. The transfer of discourse patterns entails culture transfer, if not incorporation or acculturation to a certain degree. Of course, language users tend to carry behaviour patterns and ideas across language boundaries. But we are faced here (CAMERON 2000: 22) with the movement of ideas across different social and linguistic domains within languages as well. This is reminiscent ofthe 'discourse oftechnologization' ofFAIRCLOUGH (1992: 215). lt appears that many subgroups in different countries are concurrently incorporating discourse patterns in large part via englishization (in the broader sense) which are linked with neoliberal political-economical attitudes and beliefs. As CAMERON (2002: 81) puts it: "As multinational corporations and Western consultants extend their sphere of influence, there is every reason to think that particular, and basically American (US), norms of interaction are being exported to other parts of the world, even when no attempt is made to export the English language itself'. In the English-speaking countries themselves, thankfully, such trends, especially when dictated from the top by governments, for example in educational policy, come in for criticism, as this extract from aNew Humanist editorial (2005: 3) shows: "More and more time is being spent teaching young people how to present themselves properly and keep their emotions and opinions under wraps, and less time teaching actual hands-on sk: ills necessary to carry out a profession. Soft, transferable sk: ills such as 'flexibility' and 'good communication' are now seen as equally desirable as any actual ability to carry out a job." This is to critically pinpoint the conservative and status quo-oriented residue of the 'globalizing communication skills' which CAMERON shows the modern capitalist workforce to require. Today's workers need to have a smile in their voice on the phone, a flexible attitude and the ability to 'negotiate'. For some people this constitutes the americanization of interpersonal relationships. Two articles later in the magazine, however, uncover the hidden agenda (KEEP 2005 and ROWSON 2005). The editorial (New Humanist 2005: 3) summarizes its assessment ofwhat this emphasis on 'flexibility' and 'good communication' signifies, as follows: lFLul 35 (2006) 158 Richard Alexander '"Respect', it seems, is just a code word for deference. Establishments of all sorts, whether industrial, political, or religious, like people to 'know their place'. Is this something a humanistminded person would wish for? Is this one-way relationship compatible with the humanist tenet that 'what you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others'? " CAMERON (2000: 77) has referred to the transfer ofwhat she terms 'service-styling' in English speaking countries into other languages and cultures. lt is not necessarily found to be very conducive to those cultures. She also comments on the hazards of inculcating invariant rules for 'friendly' behaviour and language-use. lt makes service workers override their own feelings for what particular customers want or need. Indeed the academic counterpoint to Cameron's invariant rules for service encounters is well-known among non-English speaking scholars and scientists. CANAGARAJAH (2002) has documented the consequences for academic science and scholarship. They need to follow Anglo-American style guides and more, ifthey want to get published in reputable (aka English-speaking) academic joumals. Is this not a blatant form oflinguistic and cultural imperialism through the back door, perhaps? This takes us on to a related issue, namely the use of English as a lingua franca for academic discourse. 8. English as an academic lingua franca: 1s this inevitable? This situation is undoubtedly posing a dilemma for academics and teachers operating in a European HE environment. We might ask whether English teachers are objectively furthering the cause of globalization via englishization. Are they contributing to the estrangement ofEuropean citizens from their own native culture and traditions? Are they encouraging a broader process of non-reciprocal or asymmetrical acculturation? Is domain loss being pursued via the adoption ofEnglish-medium teaching in universities? Is englishization an unstated and covert language policy for HE in Europe? What consequences can be expected? What are the opportunity costs of englishization? There are leaders ofnation states and CEOs ofmultinationals advocating change as an inexorable step in higher education in the face of globalization. So in a European context one fmds inevitabilism being acknowledged. Even linguists like MACKIEWICZ are enticed into this trap, as when he writes (2003: 184): "As regards higher education, one can see that the triple process ofEU expansion, the creation of a European area ofhigher education, and increasing competition on a global scale will strengthen the trend towatds English as an academic linguafranca. In a sense this is inevitable." The phrase "in a sense" is rather weaselly. IfMACKIEWICZ means that there are human groups, boards of corporations, national parliaments and associations ofuniversity vicerectors lobbying and getting laws passed to further such processes, he should say so. This is by no means 'inevitable', however. lt is worth briefly investigating the harmless sounding phrase "international study programmes" as used at German universities, as it perhaps conceals a more controversial lFLuL 35 (2006) Can International Business English Teaching Be Culturally Neutra! ... ? 159 issue than may appear obvious on first encountering it. AMMONIMCCONNELL (2002) have looked at the perceived underrating of German at German universities. Some commentators (KruscHKE 2004) see a kind of self-denial at work in Germany in offering teaching programmes in English. One way in which the discussion attempts to soften harshness of this academic reality is by distinguishing analytically between whether we mean that for academic, scholarly or scientific purposes English is being adopted as an additional language or as a replacement language. If it is seen as additional, then most people can be expected to agree. But the example of many European countries in which scarcely any academic publishing is taking place in the local language (Sweden and the Netherlands are often cited here) do not encourage much hope for the 'additional' language scenario (see KLAASEN 2002). The extreme consequence of what happens when English replaces languages has been demonstrated dramatically by MüHLHÄUSLER. He says (2003: 78) that: "Crystal's view (1997: 116) that 'English is a language which has repeatedly found itselfin the right place at the right time' needs tobe queried. For many Pacific Islands, including Pitcaim, it was not the right place." MÜHLHÄUSLER interestingly takes issue with the assertion "that language is a neutral medium of intercommunication." This he deems problematic. The assumption that English is appropriate or adequate to deal with everything is empirically negatable. For him, "[A]s an additional language English has clear limitations, as a replacement language it brings with it many dangers. The fact that an increasing number ofwell-adapted small local languages are being replaced by English is in all likelihood one of the reasons for global environmental deterioration." (MÜHLHÄUSLER 2003: 78) Ethnocentrism among native speakers ofEnglish is arguably likely to remain a constant feature of any popular, joumalistic and even academic comment or discussion of the English language. Crystal's example, in his unguarded moments quoted by MÜHLHÄUS- LER (2003: 78), letting the academic and detached stance drop to uncover ethnocentric presuppositions, need not surprise us. In most publications for native speakers ofEnglish, in the UK, these ethnocentric and triumphalist assumptions are often close to the surface. Take the subeditor' s facetious entitling of a review of several textbooks on English in the Times Higher Education Supplement, December 2, 2005: 'How Damgudthyng conquered the world'. The academic equivalent ofassuming English is 'a neutral medium ofintercommunication' consists in overlooking the historical and social role that language plays in the development of science and scholarship on a local level. As scholars such as EHLICH (2005) argue, "giving up" one's native language, using English as a replacement language and engaging in lingua franca English for scientific purposes is practically to lose a whole 'tradition' and 'culture' of science and scholarship. There are clear signs that Anglo-American commercial models are transforming daily business and social practices in European countries. These held good until 1989 and lFLuL 35 (2006) 160 Richard Alexander appeared to be receiving the undivided support of all political parties from left and right. Now there are few mainstream European politicians still keen to retain 'at all costs' indigenous European practices, which once prevailed in the former European Community. Phrases such as 'competition', 'flexibility' and 'reform of the welfare state' once had little reverberation in the Rhine model of capitalism. They now invade everyday media discourse. Is this an area where we can posit a closer relationship between englishization (E) and corporate globalization (CG)? How valid is the following hypothesis: (a) the more people employ English, the more they promote (neo-liberal, corporate) globalization (CG)? Or even: (b) The more widely corporate globalization spreads the more englishization (E) advances. The chicken-and-egg nature ofthis conundrum should be evident. If we answer even partially in the affirmative to these latter questions, it appears difficult to deny that there may well be a connection between corporate globalization and the transformations afoot. Musing about the englishization link is reminiscent of another situation. Take the recent increase in meteorological flip-flops, with extreme heat and extreme rainfall, followed by flooding in river valleys in the Alps and extreme hurricanes. How is this connected with global warming? There is much evidence to support the hypothesis but, in the eyes ofsome conservative foot-draggers not enough to 'prove' it! The conclusion then to be drawn asserts that there is no causal connection, simply a highly correlational one. Knowing what we do about complex societal and economic macro-processes, and the over-determination that comes into play in these circumstances, causative explanations are unlikely to be sustainable. Relationships between socioeconomic activity and language behaviour are more subtle and indirect. Let us propose two further relationships to characterize this insight: (c) The two processes are independent of each other (CG, E): a contingent relationship? (d) The two processes (CG<=>E) are eo-variable or correlational? 9. The hegemony of English prevents cultural neutrality Having touched upon the English ofbusiness and political economy we need to highlight what one might call the political economy ofEnglish. As English comes to predominate, how is the hegemony ofEnglish likely tobe challenged? After all, the practices and institutionalized structures underpinning this hegemony appear very solid. They form an unconscious substrate among the political and business elites in many non-English-speaking countries too. Their origins are evident. For PENNY - COOK (1998: 19): "[I]t was colonialism that produced many ofthe ways ofthinking and behaving that are still part ofWestem cultures." The English language teaching project is intricately linked with this history and for PENNYCOOK "the discourses of colonialism still echo through its theories and practices" FLuL 35 (2006) Can International Business English Teaching Be Culturally Neutra! ... ? 161 (1998: 28). I would argue that the discursive and material embedding of lingua franca English as an additional language in content teaching is continuing this pa.ttern. The role ofnative speaker EFL and TESOL teachers comes in to the equation also. I look at this below. But first consider how someone from the periphery addresses this issue. CANGARAJAH (2005) was a teacher from Jaffna, Sri Lanka. He was confronted with the hierarchies that exist between English varieties. The legitimacy question arises. Englishes are developing in different parts of the world. Why? By relocating of people, by slavery and indentured labourers, from India and Sri Lanka, the colonial masters created situations in which people took their language with them. Those who now stay at home and learn and use English still have their own languages and cultures even though they use English. The major players of globalized capitalism have learned to adjust to these developments. According to Stuart Hall' s analysis (quoted by CANAGARAJAH in his oral presentation at IATEFL 2005): "lt is now a form of capital which recognizes that it can only, to use a metaphor, rule through other local capitals, rule alongside and in partnership with other economic and political elites. lt does not attempt to obliterate them. lt operates through them" (Hall 1997: 28). CANAGARAJAH does well to stress this structural and material framework. In the English language teaching (ELT) community there are too few writers who do so. Those who seem to prefer to ignore the agency, and hence the responsibility, issue are clearly in the majority. As always, perhaps. After all, who has the gall to challenge the western world's image of itself? For our purposes it is worth stressing that Cangaraja.h questions the utility of a common set ofpractices for ELT. For him it is more important to emphasize the pragmatics of shuttling between varieties and to get away from notions of a common core for English. Communities are built on difference. What is important are the practices and strategies individual speakers adopt to communicate. The globalization of English forces a change in pedagogical priorities on the ELT and TESOL profession, both non-native and native speakers. Among native speakers this is leading to a literal self-seeking, along the lines of Pennycook who writes (1998: 28): "As a European, I must first seek out and question the colonizer within." And PEGRUM, in an IATEFL newsletter, (2005: 2) states the obvious: "It is hard to deny that the EL industry can be seen as supporting a neo-colonialist agenda, both ideologically and structurally, given its historical origins and its ongoing affiliation with the global interests ofthe UK and US." But he suggests that teachers nonetheless often 'subvert' this agenda, somehow. "If the EL industry can be accused of supporting the neo-liberal push for a homogenized world market, teachets frequently skirt commodification, enriching the course book's bland diet of shopping and tourism by creating space for students to voice local issues." This is a position we find WARSCHAUER similarly articulating. He suggests an emancipatory role for TESOL / EFL: lFJLuL 35 (2006) 162 Richard Alexander "If English is imposing the world on our students we as TESOL professionals can enable them, through English, to impose their voices on the world" (2000: 530). Although we may find such appeals idealistic and utopian, it is worth while reflecting on how they link in with political activist agendas, which consciously aim to modify hegemonic cultural, commercial, social and political practices. Returning to Susan GEORGE we find parallels in her discussion ofmainstream social science (2004: 208): "Under the guise of 'objective reality,' one usually gets the premises and ideological framework ofthe reigning paradigm, which in our own time is overwhelmingly the neo-liberal worldview." As she goes on to argue: "One of the prime responsibilities of critical intellectuals is to make these presuppositions explicit and this ideological framework visible, especially for students. They should also have the honesty to make their own stance clear." 10. Conclusion There are two positions I consider worthwhile to emphasize by way of a conclusion. One comes from my professional experience as an educator, applied linguist and language teacher for some nigh on four decades. Tue other concerns the issue ofthe responsibilities of intellectuals of standing up for their beliefs and acting as critical citizens in a participatory democracy. A subset ofthis is constituted by our academic community. But it simultaneously reaches out into the 'real-world' orientation taking in our students and our fellow citizens. Here I would emphasize a point made in ALEXANDER (1998). When we consider the detached view of second language learning as an individual activity, the relationship between change and constancy, continuity or remaining essentially the same comes to rnind. Today we might reformulate the insight in terms of multilingualism or bilingualism and ask whether it is an additive or a subtractive process. In our more idealistic and educationally oriented moments many teachers still 'dream' of the cosmopolitan prospect of world sisterand brotherhood, of people freely engaged in interpersonal relations unclouded by commodified encodings and associations, we have seen above. This author is no exception. He has always emphasized the need to appreciate the meshing of language and culture. Clearly we must recognize how it gives rise to interesting implications for the effects, possibilities and objectives of second language learning. Partly it depends on which language(s) people learn and for which explicit purposes. At the individual level there is a tension between change and remaining as before. Learning involves changes in the learner, who still retains, however, constant lexicogrammatical and cultural residues developed in early life. Yet language learning or language using always implies a process element and movement. This active or interactive element finds its expression at the points at which the 'grammar leaks', in the 'lexical gaps' and in the necessary 'vagueness' of discoursal exchanges. All these are the insights variously documented in the linguistics literature. These processes of cognitive 'fuzziness' parallel the 'cultural and social overlaps' and the cultural or communicational 'shortfalls' of all FLuL 35 (2006) Can International Business English Teaching Be Culturally Neutra! ... ? 163 inter-cultural communication. Becoming multilingual is more thanjust 'adding on' a new set of behaviours. Constant first language elements are retained, and simultaneously modified. The language use configuration thereby shifts; there is constancy within variability. In this sense people change, people expand their meaning potential. Is it our tasks as teachers to teach, as educators to educate or as trainers to train? Who or what are we? How we answer this question or how our professional background or surroundings answer this question (for us) will have, I would claim, a decisive influence on how we conceptualize the activity of teaching English in a corporately globalized world. References ALEXANDER, Richard John (1998): "Nine angles on the culture-language mesh and their implications for TESOL". In: BOEDER, Winfried/ SCHROEDER, Christoph/ WAGNER, Karl Heinz/ WILDGEN,Wolfgang (eds.): Sprache in Raum und Zeit. In memoriam Johannes Bechert. Bd 2. Beiträge zur empirischen Sprachwissenschaft. Tübingen: Narr, 155-165. AMMON, Ulrich/ MCCONNELL, Grant (2002): English as an Academic Language in Europe: a Survey of its Use in Teaching. Frankfurt/ M. [etc.]: Lang. ANDERMAN, Gunilla / ROGERS, Margaret (eds.) (2005): In and Out of English. For Better, For Worse? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. CAMERON, Deborah (2000): Good to Talk? London and elsewhere: Sage. CAMERON, Deborah (2002): "Globalization and the teaching of 'communication skills"'. In: BLOCK, David / CAMERON, Deborah (eds.): Globalization and Language Teaching. London: Routledge, 67-82. CAMERON, Deborah (2003): "Globalizing 'communication"'. In: AITCHISON, Jean/ LEWIS, Diana M. (eds.): New Media Language. London: Routledge, 27-35. CANAGARAJAH, A. Suresh (2002): A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. CANAGARAJAH, A. Suresh (2005): "Globalization of English and changing pedagogical priorities: the postmodern turn". In: BEAVEN, Briony (ed.): IATEFL 2005. Cardijf Conference Selections. Whitstable: IATEFL, 15-25. CHOMSKY, Noam (2000): Rogue States. The Rufe of Force in World Affairs. London: Pluto Press. COTTON, David/ FALVEY, David/ KENT, Simon (2000): Market Leader. London: Longman. CRYSTAL, David (1997): English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ECONOMIST (2002): "Christmas special: the English invasion". In: The Economist, December 21 2002, 120-121. ECONOMIST (2003): "Charlemagne: the galling rise ofEnglish". In: The Economist, March 1 2003, 30. ECONOMIST (2004): "The European Union. After Babel, a new common tongue". In: The Economist, August 7 2004, 23-4. EHLICH, Konrad (2005): "Deutsch als Medium wissenschaftlichen Arbeitens". In: MOTZ, Markus (ed.): Englisch oder Deutsch in Internationalen Studiengängen? Frankfurt/ M. [etc.]: Lang, 41-51. FAIRCLOUGH, Norman (1992): Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. GEORGE, Susan (2004): Another World Is Possible ff. ... London and New York: Verso. GOFFMAN, Erving (1959): The Presentation ofSelfin Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday Anchor. HALL, Stuart (1997): "The local and the global: globalization and ethnicity". In: KING, Anthony (ed.): FLulL 35 (2006) 164 Richard Alexander Culture, Globalization, and the World System. Minneapolis, Minn.: University ofMinnesota Press, 19-40. IFFE, Anne (2005): "Intercultural dialogue: the challenge of communicating across language bourtdaries". In: ANDERMAN, Gunilla / ROGERS, Margaret (eds.): In and Out of English. For Retter, For Worse? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 286-298. JAMES, Allan (2005): "The challenges ofthe lingua franca: English in the world and types ofvariety". In: GNUTZMANN, Claus / INTEMANN, Frauke (eds.): The Globalisation of English and the English Classroom. Tübingen: Narr, 133-144. JOHNSON, Chalmers (2004): The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End ofthe Republic. London: Verso. KEEP, Ewart (2005): "New labour". In: New Humanist, July/ August, 14--15. KLAASEN, Renate G. (2002): "Higher education programmes in non-linguistic disciplines through English in non-English speaking environments". In: KOSKELA, Merja / LAUREN, Christer / NORD- MANN, Marianne/ PILKE, Nina (eds.): Porta Scientiae. Lingua specialis I-II. Proceedings from the 13 th European Symposium on LSP. University ofVaasa: Vaasa/ Vasa (Finland), 353-364. KRISCHKE, Wolfgang (2004): "Englisch als Denkbarriere". In: Franlifurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 09/ 03/ 04. LOUHIALA-SALMINEN, Leena / CHARLES, Mirjaliisa / KANKAANRANTA, Anne (2005): "English as a Lingua Franca in Nordic mergers: two case companies". In: English for Specific Purposes 24.4, 401-421. MACKIEWICZ, Wolfgang (2003): "Higher education and language policy in the European Union". In: MILAN0VIC, Michael/ WEIR, Cyril (eds.): European Language Testing in a Global Context, Proceed 0 ings of the ALTE Barcelona Coriference, Studies in Language Testing Vol. 18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 173-186. MOORE, Kate / V ARANTOLA, Krista (2005): "Anglo-Finnish contacts: collisions and collusions". In: ANDERMAN, Gunilla / ROGERS, Margaret (eds.): In and Out of English. For Retter, For Worse? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 133-152. MÜHLHÄUSLER, Peter (2003): "English as an exotic language". In: MAIR, Christian (ed.): The Politics of English as a World Language. New Horizons in Postcolonial Cultural Studies. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi, 67-80. NEW HUMANIST (2005): "Taliban tendency". In: New Humanist, July/ August, 3. OSTLER, Nicholas (2005): Empires of the Word. A Language History of the World. London: HarperCollins. P AHTA, Päivi / T AAVITSAINEN, Irma (2005): "From global to local communication: appropriating English in Finnish public discourse". Paper at LGC 2005, Language and Global Communication Coriference, CardiffUniversity, Cardiff, Wales, UK, 7-9 July 2005. PEGRUM, Mark (2005): "The colonizer within? " In: Iatefl voices, October-November 2005 Issue 187, 2. PENNYCOOK, Alastair (1994): The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Longman. PENNYCOOK, Alastair (1998): English and the Discourses of Colonialism. London, New York: Routledge. PHILLIPSON, Robert (1992): Linguistic Imperialism .. Oxford: Oxford University Press. PIDLLIPSON, Robert (2003): English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London: Routledge. QIANG, Niu / WOLFF, Martin (2004): "English as a foreign language: the modern day Trojan Horse? " www.usingenglish.com/ esl-in-china/ trojan-horse.pdf (Accessed 9 January 2006.) ROWSON, Martin (2005): "Lobbing horseshit". In: New Humanist, July/ August, 21. SARDAR, Ziauddin (2005): "The next Holocaust". In: New Statesman, 5 December, 2005, 16-19. SEABROOK, Jeremy (2004): Consuming Cultures: Globalization and Local Lives. Oxford: New Intemationalist™ Publications Ltd. FlLuL 35 (2006) Can International Business English Teaching Be Culturally Neutral ... ? 165 SPRlNG, Joel (1998): Education and the Rise of the Global Economy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. WARSCHAUER, Mark (2000): "The changing global economy and the future ofEnglish teaching". In: TESOL Quarterly 34.3, 511-535. WRIGHT, Sue (forthcoming): "Processes of social transformation: an anthropology of English higher education policy". In: KREJSLER, John/ KRYGER, Nils/ MILNER, Jon (eds.): Paedogisk Antropologi et Fag I Tilblivelse. Kobenhavn: Danmarks Paedagogiske Universitet Forlag. lFLuL 35 (2006)