Esperanto and Languages of Internationalism in Revolutionary Russia by Brigid O'Keeffe

Abstract

Reviewed by: Esperanto and Languages of Internationalism in Revolutionary Russia by Brigid O'Keeffe Anna Vozna (bio) Brigid O'Keeffe, Esperanto and Languages of Internationalism in Revolutionary Russia ( New York; London: Bloomsbury, 2021). 266 pp., ill. Bibliography. Index. ISBN: 978-1-350-16065-1. Brigid O'Keeffe's book on the history of Esperanto is a fascinating read. Esperanto is an artificial language created more than a century ago by a Russian Jew, Ludwik Lejzer Zamenhof, who was aiming to overcome his marginalization in the Russian Empire by creating a new language that would allow participation in a more accommodating reality through a new means of talking and writing. By telling this old story, the book addresses questions that are as relevant for sociolinguists today as they were at the dawn of the Soviet Union. Namely, scholars working on language and identity have long been preoccupied with exposing linguistic and cultural hegemony and looking for solutions to transcend it. The history of Esperanto, as laid out by O'Keeffe, may be informative in this regard for scholars, regardless of whether their methodological preference is primordialism or social constructivism. Approaches informed by primordialism include claims for the indigenous status of a language or the need for its revitalization. Similarly, Esperantists challenged the languages of cultural hegemons, or rather the very structure of linguistic hierarchy. They believed that this structure reflected and reproduced oppressive categorization and discrimination against languages deemed nonprestigious or subpar taxonomically as "vernaculars" or "dialects." At the same time, like the proponents of constructivism, Esperantists believed that a new, more accommodating language rooted in a more equalizing worldview can be constructed to overcome old cultural hierarchies. Today, this attitude is demonstrated by the World Englishes movement as a response to the hegemony of a normative version of the English language (such as British English), or other similar solutions, which I will further refer to as language localization. O'Keeffe's account of Esperanto adds to modern sociolinguistic knowledge about language variants that are localized or revitalized as a means of resisting linguistic and cultural hegemony. One of the generally accepted observations by modern scholars has been the tendency of the communities practicing those language variants to remain exclusive and restrict joining them by their declared "constituencies." More often than not, the logic of exclusion followed by these communities is rooted in the very categorization and hierarchization systems they [End Page 296] aim to overwrite. As the book suggests, the community of practice of Esperanto speakers was not very different in this regard. Its boundaries and membership characterized it as rather exclusionary in terms of Eurocentricity, elitism, gender biases, and even occasional antisemitism. According to the author, Zamenhof, the creator of Esperanto, firmly believed that his language would be truly international, easy for anyone to learn. As a Russian Jew who found himself on the boundaries of the mainstream community of practice of Russian speakers in the Russian Empire, he set out to create a new more inclusive language. The history of the origins of his idea is detailed in chapter 1, "A Universal Language for a Globalizing World." However, as O'Keeffe demonstrates in her account of the linguistic composition of the new language, Zamenhof's world was effectively confined to Europe. He constructed a new global language based on European ones, thus making it significantly more accessible for speakers of European languages and users of Roman script. Chapter 2, "Pen Pals, Dreamers and Globetrotters," and chapter 4, "Comrades with(out) Borders,"further detail the barriers faced by aspiring Esperantists, including those involving income and gender. For instance, all one needed for participation in epistolary exchange in Esperanto was money for stamps, making it relatively affordable across different income groups. But traveling to Esperanto conferences and other inperson communication opportunities was limited to those in possession of significant disposable income for travel. Similarly, in pen-pal communication, women and men had equal voices, but when it came to the in-person events, conventional gender roles limited women's input. Esperanto convention organizers restricted women to being translators and secretaries as opposed to holding leadership positions. Another, almost painfully ironic, exclusion was that of the anti-antisemitic ideology that fueled...