Languages are disappearing, and the problem is political

Languages are disappearing, and the problem is political. A new book, How to Kill a Language by Sophia Smith Galer, argues that the decline of minority languages is not merely a cultural or linguistic issue but a direct consequence of political forces that marginalize and suppress these languages. The book explores how governments, institutions, and social structures have historically used a range of tactics, ranging from physical violence to economic incentives, to force communities into adopting dominant languages, often at the cost of their native tongues. These strategies, according to Galer, include massacres, land dispossession, forced relocation, legal persecution, and public shaming, alongside subtler forms of coercion such as economic pressure and political neglect. Galer draws on case studies from Oman, Greece, Ecuador, the United States, and Ghana, highlighting efforts by local communities to resist linguistic assimilation. She interviews experts such as Ukraine’s language commissioner Taras Kremin and Kurdish scholar Farangis Ghaderi, offering insights into regions where language preservation is actively challenged. Her narrative is enriched by her own experience as a migrant in the UK, where she witnessed firsthand the pressures of linguistic assimilation within immigrant families. This personal angle distinguishes her work from earlier accounts, such as Last Speakers by David K. Harrison and Spoken Here by Mark Abley, which focused more on documenting the last speakers of dying languages. Unlike earlier works on language loss, such as Language Death by David Crystal and Vanishing Voices by Daniel Nettle and Suzanne Romaine, which framed language extinction through biological metaphors akin to species endangerment, Galer emphasizes the political nature of the crisis. While these earlier texts acknowledged the role of politics, they often avoided direct engagement with systemic power structures, instead proposing technical interventions. Critics and activists have since pointed out the limitations of such approaches, arguing that true progress requires addressing the underlying political causes of language erosion. Recent publications such as Speak Not by James Griffiths and Language City by Ross Perlin reflect a growing awareness of the political dimensions of language loss. These works align with Galer’s argument that language survival depends on political action rather than mere linguistic preservation. By weaving together historical examples, contemporary activism, and personal reflection, Galer provides a compelling case for viewing language loss as a political phenomenon. Despite the acclaim surrounding How to Kill a Language, the book has faced pushback, particularly from voices that challenge its central thesis. A notable critique appeared in The New Yorker, authored by philosopher Nikhil Krishnan under the title Sometimes, It’s O.K. to Let a Language Die. Krishnan argues that language loss is the result of individual choices rather than coercive policies. He cites examples such as Indigenous peoples shifting to majority languages for economic opportunity, echoing arguments made by linguist Peter Ladefoged in 1992 and political commentator Kenan Malik in his essay Let Them Die. These perspectives, while widely circulated, have been criticized for ignoring decades of scholarly and activist work that underscores the role of systemic oppression in language decline. The debate over whether language loss is a political or voluntary process continues to shape discussions among scholars, activists, and policymakers. As Galer’s work demonstrates, the fight to preserve languages is deeply intertwined with broader struggles for autonomy, identity, and justice. Whether through grassroots movements or institutional reforms, the path forward will require sustained political commitment to protect linguistic diversity.