The universalist premise behind Esperanto is often described as “idealistic” and “utopian,” and can be summed up with its interna ideo (internal idea): “On the foundation of a neutral language eliminate the walls between the nations and make the people accustomed to each other, so that each of them will see in their neighbor only a human and a brother.” (Zamenhof, 1912, Parolado antaŭ la Oka Kongreso Esperantista; translation my own.)
In a sense, looking at everyone as a human, ignoring differences and focusing on similarities, sounds like a great idea. This premise is far from exclusive to the Esperanto movement, and defined many social justice movements in the 20th century. But unfortunately, it has not brought the justice it has promised. Inequality does not go away just because you ignore it. For example, if I associate with a group of abuse victims, and the group ignores LGBT issues because they’re a movement for abuse victims only, that doesn’t change the fact that when I apply for PTSD therapy or housing for battered women, my being transgender and bisexual can cause me to be discriminated against, and it has. Add the fact that I am neurodivergent and disabled, so my insurance options are limited, and the situation looks even worse. My issue is not that exactly that I’m LGBT, nor that I have PTSD, nor that I’m neurodivergent, nor that I’m disabled: it’s all of these things at the same time.
Last year I wrote a post, “How universal can a language be?”, which sparked a discussion of how an auxlang that was truly inclusive would be made. I think as a fundamental principle, any auxlang designed for the world we live in right now, rather than a future utopia, must acknowledge that there are differences between people, and that these differences often have a combined effect greater than the sum of its parts (intersectionality). This means allowing for self-definition, allowing for the people who have experience with something to decide how to define themselves, instead of following the gospel of someone who lived over a century ago and didn’t even see the problem with saying that all humans should see each other as brothers.
The criticism often raised by traditionalist Esperanto speakers is, “Wouldn’t this make it devolve into dialects?” Such a belief stems from 19th-century attitudes about language, where dialects were seen as terrible and unfortunate things, as “impurities” arising from the one true language. The ideal auxlang, in my eyes, allows for dialects. What does it matter if different social groups speak differently, if they understand each other? Dialects are not a problem, but snobby and pretentious attitudes towards so-called “proper language use” definitely are. And anyone who is analytic about Esperanto would recognize that even “fundamenta Esperanto” already has quite a few dialects, reflecting different schools of Esperanto instruction as well as viewpoints on things like the 15th rule (neologisms) and pseudosuffixes (e.g. changing -kcio to -ado, when underlying roots didn’t previously exist).
The goal of any auxlang that strives to create a just world, should be to decentralize the dominant culture, and to eliminate cultural dominance. Of course, it would be ridiculous to claim that a language could do this. Such a language must only be part of a broader movement, a means to the creation of a just world. And it must be considered replaceable whenever it proves to be unjust, or whenever people have become too rigid about it. The goal is not linguistic stability; the goal is justice. The goal is not to make people see each other as equals, but to make people equal.