This is an old paper I wrote (in 2013). Scooped it back up off my laptop and decided to put it on a website Im launching soon (current url below is just me adding on old content in early stage, i have another domain bought outright)..that point is irrelevant but the subject of the paper fits now better than ever with the unraveling of public discourse. It revolves around the concept of Linguicism..which is defined as “ideologies and structures which are used to legitimate, effectuate, and reproduce unequal division of power and resources (both material and non-material) between groups which are defined on the basis of language." The piece has sources etc. Long read as a heads up (direct link instead if people prefer it): www.originalwritingblog.wordpress.com
In some countries, and particularly in the United States of America, multiple languages are spoken among the populace by their corresponding cultural backgrounds. Commonly referred to as the "melting pot", the United States of America is known for having a vast array of sub-cultures of people under the umbrella of being American. In many ways, this diversity is one of the greatest and most unique attributes of the country. It helps provide an example to the rest of the world that cross-cultural co-operation can not only work, but be mutually beneficial. In addition, the underlying principle of equality is one that is paramount in universal human rights and that, in combination with the perception of opportunity, largely makes the United States of America a very attractive destination for different groups of people to immigrate to.
English is not technically the "official" language of the United States of America and it is not a complete necessity for people living in America to speak great, or even functional, English (though it is the de-facto language). Many people in America prefer to stay among people from similar backgrounds, conducting business with each other and interacting socially with each other. "Little Italy" and "Chinatown" are famous examples of this and are existent in multiple cities, but there are less famous areas of towns, cities, or districts that are also largely populated by specific cultural groups, making the need to speak English less important to these people, and also, somewhat discouraged because it is more comfortable for members of these groups to speak their primary languages such as Spanish, Italian, Mandarin dialects, Urdu, etc.
On many occasions, however, businesses within these cultures must deal with businesses or individuals of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The intermingling amongst cultures in business transactions is largely viewed as a great thing and a part of the American way of life, but, it is not always fluid and without problem. Circumstances of this nature assuredly arise on a daily basis across the country, some of which cause ethical dilemmas.
One hypothetical example of this is a case study scenario called Cultural Barriers: When Equality Compromises Efficiency. In this example, Ralph, a sales representative of a social advertising platform, is responsible for door-to-door sales in an area in which business owners often speak English as their second language.
This often causes miscommunication between the parties, specifically within the legalese of the contracts, resulting in countless contractual negations which costed Ralph's company a lot of money, both directly, and indirectly, through time wasted. For instance, Ralph and a hair salon came to an agreement on a contract. However, shortly after, the hairdresser at the salon became extremely upset when she learned that the online advertising platform would have to be operated by her herself rather than Ralph's company.
The result was a complete refund to the hairdresser, because Mike, Ralph's boss, had a 'customer first' policy, and while Ralph was adamant that the contractual terms were clearly stated and agreed upon, Mike wanted to take the careful and considerate avenue of conducting business and give the lady her money back.
Unfortunately for Ralph and Mike, constant adjustments of both the sales pitch and contract to ensure its clarity for clientele didn't have an impact, and as previously mentioned, there was countless contract negations and refunds. Due to this, Mike became exasperated with the current approach to business and began to consider abandoning their target market, and instead, only target business owners who speak English. However, when contemplating this, Mike becomes concerned that he would be doing an injustice to potential customers and businesses in his past target market by deciding to solely work with English speakers.
This situation has some ethical issues in play that Mike and his social advertising platform have to deal with. If Mike and his business decide to only work with English speakers, the notions of prejudice and discrimination immediately arise. While it may not necessarily be unethical for him to target English speakers more than he did previously, it would certainly be unethical to turn down customers who are interested in his business just because they cannot speak English very well. Mike could easily disguise the fact by making up some other excuse as to why he is not conducting business with them, or simply ignore them, but the fact that he would shun away customers based on their English speaking ability, and perhaps, to a lesser degree, their cultural background, is very unethical, regardless of how he actually expresses his disinterest in co-operation with them.
A concept that applies to this exact idea of prejudice and discrimination is what is called linguicism. Tove Skutnabb-Kangas defined linguicism as the "ideologies and structures which are used to legitimate, effectuate, and reproduce unequal division of power and resources (both material and non-material) between groups which are defined on the basis of language. (Quoted in Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, and Phillipson, Robert, "'Mother Tongue': The Theoretical and Sociopolitical Construction of a Concept." In Ammon, Ulrich (ed.) (1989). Status and Function of Languages and Language Varieties, p. 455. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co. ISBN 3-11-011299-X.)"
I am firmly against prejudicial and discriminatory actions and the phenomenon of linguicism described by Skutnabb-Kangas is applicable directly to this situation. Jon Reyhner of Northern Arizona University implies the phenomenon of linguicism to be unethical and ties it back to some of the pilgrims that settled America. "Just as the pilgrims were forced to leave England and then chose to leave Holland because they wanted their children to grow up practicing Puritan religious teachings and speaking English, there are minority groups in this country who feel they are under attack: Under attack, not because they are unproductive or anti-social members of society, but because they are different (Linguicism in America)." While an isolated business, such as the one ran by Mike, may not cause these groups to feel 'under attack', per se, if he chose to deal with only English speakers privately...it could cause that feeling if that policy was made public via the media or through chatter among the spurned business owners, and it definitely would if it became a trend of business practice in that area.
Another ethical issue at hand, by extension and application of the prejudice and discrimination, is the concept of fair equality of opportunity. One proponent the equality of opportunity for individuals is John Rawls. Richard J. Arneson describes Rawlsian thought by writing:"the Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle holds that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. This last condition is glossed as follows: Institutions should be arranged so that any two persons with the same native talent and the same ambition should have the same prospects of success in the competition for positions of advantage that distribute primary social goods (http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/againstrawlsianeq.pdf)."
While it can be argued that this philosophy may not directly apply because it primarily deals with the distribution of primary social goods to private individuals, I believe that the overall nature of the concept from Rawls does, in fact, apply here. If Mike and his business proceed with their plans to target a different market based on linguistic ability of the English language, he is directly placing those who do not fit the bill at a disadvantaged position and could cause them to lose out on an opportunity to help their own businesses. This could cause them to lose business, especially in comparison to potential competitors who do use Mike's business, and that is quite an unethical result, specifically due to the prejudicial and discriminatory nature of Mike's business practices.
On the other hand, as an individual and business owner, Mike has the right to essentially conduct business with those he chooses to conduct business with. While he should certainly try to avoid being unethical and immoral by completely refusing to do business with those he was targeting previously, he does have a right to target a different market that would result in his business becoming more profitable. One ethical philosophy that applies to the issue of Mike trying to maximize profits is from Milton Friedman who claimed that "there is one and only one social responsibility of business--to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud. (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/dunnweb/rprnts.friedman.html)."
Friedman was generally opposed to the theory that business owners and corporate executives should have a social responsibility, so Mike's proposed solution, if executed lawfully, would be acceptable under this line of Friedman's thinking. Personally, as I alluded to earlier, I do not believe his solution to only target and conduct business with 'good' English speakers is an ethical and morally sound solution. Primarily, the fair equality of opportunity principle proposed by John Rawls supports this, and linguicism directly describes how the solution would be prejudicial and discriminatory, making it quite unethical. It is unclear how big of a business Mike's social advertising platform really is, so speculating on possible solutions may be a futile pursuit due to lack of information, however, there are a few alternative options for Mike, that I can think of, that could result in success and definitely be ethical.
First of all, Mike could hire a multilingual speaker (depending on the amount of languages and which languages spoken in the current market) to deliver the sales pitch that Ralph previously covered, while Ralph could be sent to do door to door pitches in the "English speaking" markets. This would allow the non English speaking business owners to be treated without prejudice and equally, enable the contract terms to be more clear to them (because sometimes words in English don't have a correlated word in another language and must be explained by a speaker of both languages), and generally result in more success as multiple markets could be targeted. If Mike couldn't afford an additional employee, then maybe it would be suitable to fire Ralph based on poor performance and hire the more versatile speaker in his stead, or, if Ralph is salaried, switch him to commission and hire the other employee on commission as well.
Another thing Mike could do, is get his website and advertising platform translated into the different languages of the cultures that he deals with. This might be cheaper than hiring an additional employee if he couldn't afford to do both, and would be good to do in any event, to further back up the legitimacy of his contracts. Ralph, or another salesperson could refer the business owners to the website if they are having trouble understanding the terms of the contract because of cultural barriers and allow them to e-mail him or otherwise contact him with any concerns. This could help remedy this situation and would work specifically well if used in conjunction with a multi-lingual employee and perhaps further communication with said employee via phone or e-mail, as well, if deemed necessary by the non-English speaking business owners in order for the contract to be upheld. This would also save time as it would cut down on complaints and dealing with them, and allow the business to work the current market and use some of that new-found time to penetrate the new market(s).
In conclusion, Mike's proposed solution to the cultural barriers that have costed his business money and time is unethical. While there are some who would contend that a business should solely focus on profits and that it is an amoral institution, others would argue that if Mike executed his proposed solution, then he would be exhibiting linguicism (prejudicial and discriminatory behavior based on language) and also would be violating the principle of the fair equality of opportunity. I tend to side with those who would find themselves in the latter side of the argument rather than the former.
Mike should not make the decision to only work with English speakers because not only because it would be clearly immoral, but also because it is not very smart from a business standpoint to completely leave a market that has exhibited interest in his product. Another aspect to this is that, despite probably being worth pursuing to a degree, the business owners in the new market may not even need his business as much as the business owners in his current target market because they may be more familiar with social media advertising.
Undoubtedly, the solutions that I proposed would be considered far more acceptable than Mike's by Kangas, Reyhner and Rawls, but also, potentially by Milton Friedman, because it may maximize profits even more than if the social advertising platform business completely left a market with potential for business success. Mike should definitely reconsider his plan and decide to go a different direction.
In some countries, and particularly in the United States of America, multiple languages are spoken among the populace by their corresponding cultural backgrounds. Commonly referred to as the "melting pot", the United States of America is known for having a vast array of sub-cultures of people under the umbrella of being American. In many ways, this diversity is one of the greatest and most unique attributes of the country. It helps provide an example to the rest of the world that cross-cultural co-operation can not only work, but be mutually beneficial. In addition, the underlying principle of equality is one that is paramount in universal human rights and that, in combination with the perception of opportunity, largely makes the United States of America a very attractive destination for different groups of people to immigrate to.
English is not technically the "official" language of the United States of America and it is not a complete necessity for people living in America to speak great, or even functional, English (though it is the de-facto language). Many people in America prefer to stay among people from similar backgrounds, conducting business with each other and interacting socially with each other. "Little Italy" and "Chinatown" are famous examples of this and are existent in multiple cities, but there are less famous areas of towns, cities, or districts that are also largely populated by specific cultural groups, making the need to speak English less important to these people, and also, somewhat discouraged because it is more comfortable for members of these groups to speak their primary languages such as Spanish, Italian, Mandarin dialects, Urdu, etc.
On many occasions, however, businesses within these cultures must deal with businesses or individuals of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The intermingling amongst cultures in business transactions is largely viewed as a great thing and a part of the American way of life, but, it is not always fluid and without problem. Circumstances of this nature assuredly arise on a daily basis across the country, some of which cause ethical dilemmas.
One hypothetical example of this is a case study scenario called Cultural Barriers: When Equality Compromises Efficiency. In this example, Ralph, a sales representative of a social advertising platform, is responsible for door-to-door sales in an area in which business owners often speak English as their second language.
This often causes miscommunication between the parties, specifically within the legalese of the contracts, resulting in countless contractual negations which costed Ralph's company a lot of money, both directly, and indirectly, through time wasted. For instance, Ralph and a hair salon came to an agreement on a contract. However, shortly after, the hairdresser at the salon became extremely upset when she learned that the online advertising platform would have to be operated by her herself rather than Ralph's company.
The result was a complete refund to the hairdresser, because Mike, Ralph's boss, had a 'customer first' policy, and while Ralph was adamant that the contractual terms were clearly stated and agreed upon, Mike wanted to take the careful and considerate avenue of conducting business and give the lady her money back.
Unfortunately for Ralph and Mike, constant adjustments of both the sales pitch and contract to ensure its clarity for clientele didn't have an impact, and as previously mentioned, there was countless contract negations and refunds. Due to this, Mike became exasperated with the current approach to business and began to consider abandoning their target market, and instead, only target business owners who speak English. However, when contemplating this, Mike becomes concerned that he would be doing an injustice to potential customers and businesses in his past target market by deciding to solely work with English speakers.
This situation has some ethical issues in play that Mike and his social advertising platform have to deal with. If Mike and his business decide to only work with English speakers, the notions of prejudice and discrimination immediately arise. While it may not necessarily be unethical for him to target English speakers more than he did previously, it would certainly be unethical to turn down customers who are interested in his business just because they cannot speak English very well. Mike could easily disguise the fact by making up some other excuse as to why he is not conducting business with them, or simply ignore them, but the fact that he would shun away customers based on their English speaking ability, and perhaps, to a lesser degree, their cultural background, is very unethical, regardless of how he actually expresses his disinterest in co-operation with them.
A concept that applies to this exact idea of prejudice and discrimination is what is called linguicism. Tove Skutnabb-Kangas defined linguicism as the "ideologies and structures which are used to legitimate, effectuate, and reproduce unequal division of power and resources (both material and non-material) between groups which are defined on the basis of language. (Quoted in Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, and Phillipson, Robert, "'Mother Tongue': The Theoretical and Sociopolitical Construction of a Concept." In Ammon, Ulrich (ed.) (1989). Status and Function of Languages and Language Varieties, p. 455. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co. ISBN 3-11-011299-X.)"
I am firmly against prejudicial and discriminatory actions and the phenomenon of linguicism described by Skutnabb-Kangas is applicable directly to this situation. Jon Reyhner of Northern Arizona University implies the phenomenon of linguicism to be unethical and ties it back to some of the pilgrims that settled America. "Just as the pilgrims were forced to leave England and then chose to leave Holland because they wanted their children to grow up practicing Puritan religious teachings and speaking English, there are minority groups in this country who feel they are under attack: Under attack, not because they are unproductive or anti-social members of society, but because they are different (Linguicism in America)." While an isolated business, such as the one ran by Mike, may not cause these groups to feel 'under attack', per se, if he chose to deal with only English speakers privately...it could cause that feeling if that policy was made public via the media or through chatter among the spurned business owners, and it definitely would if it became a trend of business practice in that area.
Another ethical issue at hand, by extension and application of the prejudice and discrimination, is the concept of fair equality of opportunity. One proponent the equality of opportunity for individuals is John Rawls. Richard J. Arneson describes Rawlsian thought by writing:"the Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle holds that social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. This last condition is glossed as follows: Institutions should be arranged so that any two persons with the same native talent and the same ambition should have the same prospects of success in the competition for positions of advantage that distribute primary social goods (http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/againstrawlsianeq.pdf)."
While it can be argued that this philosophy may not directly apply because it primarily deals with the distribution of primary social goods to private individuals, I believe that the overall nature of the concept from Rawls does, in fact, apply here. If Mike and his business proceed with their plans to target a different market based on linguistic ability of the English language, he is directly placing those who do not fit the bill at a disadvantaged position and could cause them to lose out on an opportunity to help their own businesses. This could cause them to lose business, especially in comparison to potential competitors who do use Mike's business, and that is quite an unethical result, specifically due to the prejudicial and discriminatory nature of Mike's business practices.
On the other hand, as an individual and business owner, Mike has the right to essentially conduct business with those he chooses to conduct business with. While he should certainly try to avoid being unethical and immoral by completely refusing to do business with those he was targeting previously, he does have a right to target a different market that would result in his business becoming more profitable. One ethical philosophy that applies to the issue of Mike trying to maximize profits is from Milton Friedman who claimed that "there is one and only one social responsibility of business--to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud. (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/dunnweb/rprnts.friedman.html)."
Friedman was generally opposed to the theory that business owners and corporate executives should have a social responsibility, so Mike's proposed solution, if executed lawfully, would be acceptable under this line of Friedman's thinking. Personally, as I alluded to earlier, I do not believe his solution to only target and conduct business with 'good' English speakers is an ethical and morally sound solution. Primarily, the fair equality of opportunity principle proposed by John Rawls supports this, and linguicism directly describes how the solution would be prejudicial and discriminatory, making it quite unethical. It is unclear how big of a business Mike's social advertising platform really is, so speculating on possible solutions may be a futile pursuit due to lack of information, however, there are a few alternative options for Mike, that I can think of, that could result in success and definitely be ethical.
First of all, Mike could hire a multilingual speaker (depending on the amount of languages and which languages spoken in the current market) to deliver the sales pitch that Ralph previously covered, while Ralph could be sent to do door to door pitches in the "English speaking" markets. This would allow the non English speaking business owners to be treated without prejudice and equally, enable the contract terms to be more clear to them (because sometimes words in English don't have a correlated word in another language and must be explained by a speaker of both languages), and generally result in more success as multiple markets could be targeted. If Mike couldn't afford an additional employee, then maybe it would be suitable to fire Ralph based on poor performance and hire the more versatile speaker in his stead, or, if Ralph is salaried, switch him to commission and hire the other employee on commission as well.
Another thing Mike could do, is get his website and advertising platform translated into the different languages of the cultures that he deals with. This might be cheaper than hiring an additional employee if he couldn't afford to do both, and would be good to do in any event, to further back up the legitimacy of his contracts. Ralph, or another salesperson could refer the business owners to the website if they are having trouble understanding the terms of the contract because of cultural barriers and allow them to e-mail him or otherwise contact him with any concerns. This could help remedy this situation and would work specifically well if used in conjunction with a multi-lingual employee and perhaps further communication with said employee via phone or e-mail, as well, if deemed necessary by the non-English speaking business owners in order for the contract to be upheld. This would also save time as it would cut down on complaints and dealing with them, and allow the business to work the current market and use some of that new-found time to penetrate the new market(s).
In conclusion, Mike's proposed solution to the cultural barriers that have costed his business money and time is unethical. While there are some who would contend that a business should solely focus on profits and that it is an amoral institution, others would argue that if Mike executed his proposed solution, then he would be exhibiting linguicism (prejudicial and discriminatory behavior based on language) and also would be violating the principle of the fair equality of opportunity. I tend to side with those who would find themselves in the latter side of the argument rather than the former.
Mike should not make the decision to only work with English speakers because not only because it would be clearly immoral, but also because it is not very smart from a business standpoint to completely leave a market that has exhibited interest in his product. Another aspect to this is that, despite probably being worth pursuing to a degree, the business owners in the new market may not even need his business as much as the business owners in his current target market because they may be more familiar with social media advertising.
Undoubtedly, the solutions that I proposed would be considered far more acceptable than Mike's by Kangas, Reyhner and Rawls, but also, potentially by Milton Friedman, because it may maximize profits even more than if the social advertising platform business completely left a market with potential for business success. Mike should definitely reconsider his plan and decide to go a different direction.