Dear Eberard,

I am amazed that they are as much as a 1/3 of the participants at the
Jakarta conference from Western countries. I bet they are mainly from
WHO-Geneva and WHO-Europe (Copenhagen). And from those, I know some
are UK and other native English speaking persons.
Add the official representatives from the countries and a few people from
WHO collaborative centres. The others will be from Northern Europe, i.e.
closer to
English culture.

My comments concerning the geographical distribution of the participants at the
Jakarta conference will only concern the language problem. And by language, I
do not mean speaking and understanding English.

Jakarta has to be a productive conference. To "produce", you have to think,
using not only words and concepts but also semantic fields. The problem is that
the philosophical, political or social framework of health promotion comes from
the English culture and refers sometimes  to semantic fields which do not exist
in a particular culture or in another. You do not produce in English, you do
not have any chance to be invited.

I am from Southern Belgium and I speak French. I have been very upset when I saw
first the Ottawa Charter and compared the French translation with the original
text. The French document does not have "sel" (English translation "salt" but
meaning "wit"), has no dynamism (lost when translating the continuous form
of a verb in "ing" such in buildING healthy public policy) and does not explain
too well concepts like "advocacy" which does not exist in French.
  -I do not think that the translation could have been significantly better.-
The same problem arises with "involvement", "capacity building", "empowerment",
and so on...

How to produce in a language which is not truly yours? Nearly impossible.

At least in health promotion. I think that it is easier for those scientists who
use a specific technical vocabulary ("technolecte" in French) developed as
science develops. In health promotion, the "technolecte" is built using concepts
from activists (no French translation for that concept), politicians, social
workers, etc. which refers to semantic fields with a past, with a history. As
they are to some extent usual words, no explanation is necessary: every
English speaking will think that this is comprehensive for everybody with
some English
knowledge. You do not know the concepts, you do not understand them fully, you
do not produce them, you are not a very early adopter, you are out.
This is no hazard if at a point in time (4 years ago?), nearly half of the
scientists at WHO-Europe were from UK.

Health promotion is slow to start in the South of Europe, compared with the
North, Ireland and UK. It is the same, as far as I know, in French-speaking
Africa. Not surprizing. What is surprizing is that it starts at all.

Because thinking in English and in English culture is only half of the
problem. The other half is that the non-English have concepts which are never
used, which are never referred to. You nearly have to forget your culture
and adopt another one.

I am also upset when I cannot translate French concepts in English. And when I
tried, one said: "but why don't you use the Ottawa concepts?". This time, it is
them who do not grasp the semantic field.

I have thought about "entering the battle", a bit like some Quebecois. But we
need an unifying theory to make alliances and to push forwards the health
promotion concept ans process. English won. OK.

But it would be nice if culturo-semantic groups could meet (such as French,
Spanish, Italian and Portuguese) to define concepts which give dynamism or
meaning to social and political work in their countries in order to integrate
them in the health promotion literature.
One example: teachers here use the concept "pedagogie de projet" (pedagogy by
project, or learning by doing something meaningful) and know the meaning and
technical of it. Once, explaining the health promoting school project to a
group of teachers, one said: "you mean a "pedagogie de projet" in health
applied not to a class but to the whole school! Why did you not say so
straight away?". Well, I was stupidly following the translation of the 12
principles of the European Network of Health Promoting Schools, that's why.

And it would be wonderful if one day, the health promotion glossary would
integrate a (first) foreign Englisized (spelling?) concept.

Maybe we can organize a competition. I have a candidate: the "savoir" concept.
My definition of it is: "a coherent body of knowledge and skills linked by a
vision". For example, a good craftsman has a "savoir", the others only have
knowledge and skills. To be applied to health promotion easily....
Sometimes, I ask myself if the Anglo-Saxon behavioural theories did not
integrate concepts close to knowledge and skills because they do not have a
concept such as "savoir" which give a meaning to the learning.

I have been long. Sorry for that.
And thank you very much for your question. I hope others will react as well.

Guess what: I have first written my text in French to avoid being
oversimplistic. It took twice the time an English-speaking would have spent...

Danielle Piette
UNIVERSITE LIBRE DE BRUXELLES
School of Public Health
Health Promotion and Education Unit
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]