Neoliberal ideology attempts to make all spheres of social life play by the rules of the market (Gray, 2000), and foreign language teaching is not an exception. The hegemonic role of English in the neoliberal project breeds it as a commodity that can satisfy non-native speakers' need to access the globalized world. In the 1990s, neoliberalism dominated the sociopolitical landscape of most Latin American countries. At the time, language policies in Uruguay sought to make English the foreign language par excellence, to the detriment of other languages such as French and Italian. The discourse of neoliberal language policies related the expansion of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) to a new global order that called for an instrumental language to help Uruguay become "a first world country," and English was the key to open doors to globalization. During the first decade of the 21st century, however, the sociopolitical landscape of Uruguay shifted toward a left-wing ideology. Even though policies continued to promote EFL, they struggled to re-define its political meaning. As English was now seen as a symbol of imperialism (Phillipson, 1992) and colonialism (Pennycook, 1994(Pennycook, , 1998(Pennycook, , 2000, the only way for Uruguayan children to be critical of its hegemonic power was to learn the language through a pedagogy of empowerment. In this paper, I argue that the transition from neoliberal to left-wing ideology in central government brought about a political struggle (Koselleck, 1993(Koselleck, , 2002 in which each ideology fought to (re)define EFL in its own terms. I will map this political struggle to define EFL in Uruguay by analyzing three official EFL-related documents written by policy makers and other stakeholders in the 1990s and 2000s, which represent the voices of neoliberal and left-wing policy makers, respectively.
16English was the key to open doors to globalization. During the first decade of the 21 st century, however, the sociopolitical landscape of Uruguay shifted toward a left-wing ideology for the first time in the history of the country. The new left-wing government did not reverse or change EFL policies; instead, it continued to promote it, even though some left-wing radical sectors would see the language as a symbol of imperialism (Phillipson, 1992) and colonialism (Pennycook, 1994(Pennycook, , 1998(Pennycook, , 2000. However, the government did struggle to re-define the political meanings associated to EFL. As left-wing governments in Latin America are in general terms aligned with critical pedagogy in education, new discourses related EFL to a pedagogy of empowerment, for which the language should be learned so that children could be critical of hegemonic powers, at the same time that students would be given the chance to learn a language of global communication.There may be various reasons behind this decision to keep promoting EFL in Uruguay despite previous links to neo-liberal policies: firstly, a need to comply with the increasing social demand to learn English, which has for ...
