While in Germany the other day I picked up a copy of Helmut Schmidt‘s latest (and probably last) book, Ausser Dienst: Eine Bilanz. Basically, it is a collection of ruminations 25 years after leaving office as Bundeskanzler in the Federal Republic of Germany. Schmidt was Bundeskanzler from 1974-1982 and was, to my mind at least, one of the greatest politicians of the post-war years. As well as being probably one of the most intelligent politicians of his generation, he was also a generous and always interesting man. He also managed to keep Margaret Thatcher in check.
In the introduction to his book of reminiscences the chain-smoking 91 year-old (whom I managed to miss when he did a long session at the Kirchentag in Bremen last May – many went to see if he could manage to last a whole two hours in a hall where smoking was banned) says:
Now approaching the end of my life, I simply wanted to put in writing what I believe I have learned politically in the course of the decades I have served.
He left public office in 1987 after three decades as (what we would call in Britain) an MP. So, his reflections and reminiscences bring with them an authority and wisdom that need to be taken seriously. It seems to me that every politician should be forced to read this book … and Denis Healey’s wonderful The Time of my Life.
Here Schmidt discusses the need for politicians to learn the art of compromise and tolerance, observing that the responsibility of a politician is not abstract, but has to be worked out in very real and complex situations. He makes comments about the need for all politicians to do two things before taking public office: (a) travel widely and (b) learn at least two foreign languages. Can you imagine any British or American politician taking that seriously? Yet he is absolutely spot on.
To learn a language is to enter beneath the surface of a people, their history and their culture. It is necessary to learn a language in order to understand how relatively limited is your own culture and understanding of the world. Schmidt handled the British media and people like Margaret Thatcher with consummate ease, speaking English with a rare skill for semantic nuance and shaming the linguistically-challenged British by his unshowy facility to understand the British mindset – even when he clearly thought he was dealing with rather limited intellects.
Whenever I am abroad I feel rather ashamed at my weakness in languages. Compared to what it should be, my German is now not very good. But, I cannot forget the experience of learning French from an early age (but never practicing it) and, later, Russian as an adult and professional linguist. As you learn the language and explore the history and culture of a people, you begin to understand why they think the way they do. You begin to loook through their eyes and comprehend why the world looks as it does from their perspective.
So, why, I ask, are languages relegated to the second division of the English school curriculum? Why are we so stupid as to allow children to drop all foreign languages at the age of 14? Do we not realise that not only do they lose the opportunity I have just described of entering into the soul of another people and, therefore, finding a new way of reflecting on their own identity, but they also put themselves at a massive disadvantage when it comes to making their way in the world of work and business? If young children in some of my Croydon schools can have an easy facility with several languages – of which English might be their third – why can’t English children surmount their island mentality and manage at least one foreign language to some degree of articulacy?
Schmidt says this (in my translation):
My many travels have confirmed for me just how important it is to observe your own country from the outside and to compare its institutions and laws with those of another state.
Reading that on the flight back from Berlin last night, I reflected that the same is true of the Church. When I listen to some Christians extolling the virtues of the Reformers in Europe (usually very selectively), I smile to think how they would react if they saw what that reformed tradition actually looks like in reality. We all need to see through the eyes of others and be willing to see our own certainties differently as a result.
But, as Schmidt suggests in his wonderful, wise and very personal book, to see through the eyes of others is dangerous: you might end up being more generous to them and more critical of your own.
And that would never do – would it?
Nick Baines's Blog 
September 28, 2009 at 4:26 pm
And of course this interest and intense study of other cultures and “manners” was a normal part of the life of educated people in England from the age of More and Erasmus onwards. I suspect the growth of Empire killed it off.
September 28, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Peter, you are probably right. Power that suppresses other people/cultures/ languages removes from you the need to enter into anyone else’s experience. Good point – thanks.
September 28, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I can’t answer for Peter and the more educated classes, I left a Secondary Modern School with no formal qualifications in the 1960’s. Coming from the East End of London, we were not given high aspirations or real hope of access to Higher Education.
Ending up in the Army, I was obliged to live overseas on several occasions – to live and speak the local language is a must, but many never bother. I was fortunate to learn Oral Flemish and French while living in Belguim, and German while in Germany. However, all three are now pretty rusty, and I would have difficulty understanding them now.
I regret my neglect of languages and learning, as I do of Music, the Arts and a whole load of culture, which I now only really appreciate for the first time, a few days away from my 60th.
But I am taking the view that it is never to late to learn, and we will see where this takes me in the next few months or years.
September 28, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I grew up in Canada and learned French at school as a matter of course, as well as having had the opportunity to study Spanish, Italian and Hebrew with varying degrees of success, so perhaps it isn’t a surprise that I agree. My French now is embarrassingly rusty as I haven’t really used it for a decade, but there was a time I could think in French and I certainly had a better formal grasp of the grammatical structures than I did in English. The anthropologist I share my household with speaks at least four languages and at some point I will resume Spanish lessons with her.
One of the things that made French easier for me to learn as a child was exposure to the language in everyday life. We didn’t listen to French radio or watch French television much, but it was there if we wanted to, and pretty much everything sold had bilingual labeling because the law required it. But a disadvantage was that every time I encountered someone who spoke French, they were either a learner like me or really wanted to practise their English.
It shouldn’t be too difficult for me to find some French (and indeed Spanish) news sources and music, which will help a lot. I wonder whether the increased access to this sort of connectivity will make it more likely that people choose of their own volition to learn second and third languages, or instead make it seem less necessary?
If I were going to learn a language for business purposes today I think I would go for Arabic, Cantonese or one of the many languages spoken in India.
September 28, 2009 at 8:04 pm
At least languages are being taught at a younger age than ever before. I taught in a primary school where Arabic, Welsh, Urdu, Spanish and Italian were taught across the school to children who all has English as an Additional Language. It was a matter of enthusing them about other languages and cultures, enjoying playing with words and sounds, and preparing them for the multicultural and multilingual world that now exists in many of our cities.
The argument against languages that I often heard was that in most cases they were never used later in life and became rusty. My own languages are now embarrassingly rusty but I hope that my language education was about more than being able to practise on my holidays. Surely, as you say, learning another language can be so much more.
September 28, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Anthony, you are right. But, of course, what you never lose – having once learned a language to a reasonable level – is that experience of discovering a different way of thinking, seeing, expressing … and ‘feeling’ you way into the experience (in terms of history and identity) of another person or people. That experience can never be taken away from you even if your languages become rusty. And, knowing you, I bet your language competence is still far greater than mine!
October 2, 2009 at 12:04 pm
You are so right about languages, Nick. If you love to communicate, being able to speak a language or languages other than your own brings huge benefits. Because it’s enriched my own life so much, I’m at a loss to understand why language learning is such a low priority in this country. I think some of it is psychological – learning and speaking another language involves a loss of control. You have to let go of inhibitions about making different sounds, for example. And be prepared to make a fool of yourself. Perhaps the British are less willing than some other nationalities to take that risk?
January 12, 2010 at 3:10 pm
[…] Afghanistan, church, EKD, Germany, Margot Kaessmann | Leave a Comment I once referred to Helmut Schmidt’s contention that every national politician should be able to speak at least two foreign languages. That would […]
November 10, 2015 at 10:50 pm
[…] be written and spoken about him, so I will just point to a selection of observations I have made here, here, here and […]