Some praise Rakuten for displaying ambitions in expanding globally and others criticize the move to English as ineffective from a human resource perspective, but no one seems to have considered its plan from a socio-cultural perspective.

When we simply use English as a global tool for business communication, we keep it straightforward and completely devoid of cultural factors that may confuse the nonnative English speaker. But by requiring all casual in-house chats to be conducted entirely in English, Rakuten is attempting to use English as a cultural communication tool as well as a business one. Yet, English cannot clearly represent non-Western cultural concepts, so its exclusive use in a non-English setting will only lead to the wrong cultural nuances, even if fluent English is being spoken and written.

A culture creates a language to communicate common experience, and the resulting language becomes the exclusive representation of its parent culture. Taking away a language from its culture is like taking a baby away from its mother. Enormous confusion will ensue, reducing the confidence of nonnative English speakers in their own culture.

By conversing in English when English is not required, aren't we glorifying English beyond the point where it is just a convenient tool for global communication? Isn't replacing a language with English in a non-English environment a sign of a lack of confidence in the culture of the setting?

name withheld by request