Dominique Simeone Link Esperanto, Humanism, and Language Justice

Dominique Simeone is an Italian-born multilingual freethinker, writer, and Esperanto advocate associated with SAT-Amikaro and broader international humanist networks. Public biographical materials describe early study and use of Italian, French, German, Flemish, English, and Esperanto, reflecting a long-standing interest in language and international communication. Simeone studied economics and philosophy at Paris X-Nanterre, completed Esperanto certifications in 2005 and 2006, and later published work linking Esperanto, freethought, and humanism, including “Esperanto, a way to Humanism” in International Humanist News in 2006. Simeone’s public work consistently frames Esperanto as a non-imperialist, equality-oriented tool for practical cross-border dialogue and shared ethical community internationally.

In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Dominique Simeone about the overlap between Esperanto and organized humanism. Simeone argues that Esperanto offers neutrality, directness, community, and language justice that machine translation cannot fully provide. The discussion examines why Volapük, Ido, and Interlingua remained marginal, how Zamenhof’s Homaranismo can be read today, and how authoritarian systems often fear neutral lingua francas. Simeone also addresses freethinker activity in Esperantujo, critiques of Eurocentrism, the value of Esperanto for building humanist community, the propaedeutic effect in language learning, and what might persuade modern skeptics of Esperanto’s continued relevance and practical usefulness today globally.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What first led you to Esperanto and to organized humanism?

Dominique Simeone:

* Esperanto often attracts those who see language barriers as a root cause of misunderstanding and conflict. They are drawn by the ideal of a neutral, fair platform for international communication that belongs to no single nation, thus promoting equality.

* Organized Humanism/Freethought attracts those who value critical thinking, scientific reasoning, and ethical frameworks based on human agency rather than religious dogma. They seek a community based on shared values of reason, compassion, and justice.

The synergy is natural: both movements are fundamentally human-centric, optimistic about human potential, and work towards a more rational and peaceful world. Esperanto provides a practical tool for humanists to communicate across borders without the cultural hegemony of national languages.

Jacobsen: What does Esperanto provide that machine translation cannot?

Simeone: Machine Translation (MT) and Esperanto address the problem of multilingualism from opposite ends.

* Machine Translation (e.g., DeepL, Google Translate) is a technical solution. It attempts to bridge the gap between existing, often unequal, power structures represented by national languages. It is reactive, complex, and its output, while improving, still lacks nuance and can perpetuate errors and biases present in its training data.

* Esperanto is a human and social solution. It provides:

* Neutrality: It belongs to no single culture or nation, fostering a sense of equal footing.

* Community: It creates a transnational, intentional community (*Esperantujo*) with its own culture, literature, and friendships.

* Directness & Clarity: Communication happens directly, without the opaque "black box" of an algorithm. The speaker's intent is preserved.

* Educational Value: Learning Esperanto trains the mind in language structure and metalinguistic awareness.

In short: MT translates texts; Esperanto connects people.

Jacobsen: Why have Volapük, Ido, and Interlingua largely been ineffectual?

Simeone: This is a classic question in interlinguistics.

* Volapük (1879): Its vocabulary was too radically altered from source languages (e.g., *vol* and *pük* from "world" and "speak"), making it difficult to learn. The superior design of Esperanto and internal schisms eclipsed it.

* Ido (1907): A "reformed" Esperanto. Its failure is the prime example of the dialectical problem: schisms fatally weaken a nascent movement. Ido offered minor linguistic improvements but shattered the community's unity, which is more critical than perfection for a language's survival.

* Interlingua (1951): It is not a language for active use but a passive language for understanding Romance languages. It lacks a speaking community and a vision for everyday communication, limiting its role to a scholarly tool.

Esperanto succeeded where they failed due to a combination of Zamenhof's superior, flexible design, a strong foundational ideology (*Interna Ideo*), and, most importantly, the early establishment of a vibrant, self-sustaining community.

Jacobsen: How do you read L. L. Zamenhof's Hilelismo/Homaranismo today?

Simeone: We can read it on two levels:

1. As a Historical Artifact: It was a product of its time—a deeply idealistic response to the pogroms and anti-Semitism Zamenhof witnessed. It was an attempt to create a supra-religious ethical framework to overcome tribal and religious hatred.

2. As a Relevant Ideal: Its core principles are strikingly modern and align with secular humanism and cosmopolitanism:

* Ethical Foundation over Dogma: It emphasizes a universal ethics ("to act toward others as one wants others to act toward oneself") rather than belief.

* Tolerance and Neutrality: It champions the right of individuals to their own beliefs within a framework of mutual respect. As Zamenhof wrote, "I never need to hate or persecute anyone for believing in God differently than I do."

* A Forerunner to Humanist Ideals: It can be seen as a proto-humanist attempt to find a common, rational basis for human coexistence beyond religious divisions.

While it never took hold as a formal movement, its spirit infuses the Esperanto community's ethos of tolerance and internationalism.

Jacobsen: The Esperanto community includes diverse religious groups. Is this neutrality in diversity or cosmopolitanism, or both?

Simeone: It is definitely both, and they are intertwined.

* Neutrality in Diversity: The language itself is a neutral tool. It does not privilege any religion or culture. This allows Catholic, Protestant, Bahá'í, atheist, and other groups to use it on an equal footing. The language's structure facilitates this by being easy to learn for all.

* Cosmopolitanism: This is the active principle. The community does not just tolerate diversity; it often celebrates it. The shared identity as *Esperantists* creates a broader, cosmopolitan identity that transcends narrower religious or national identities. They engage in dialogue and shared projects (such as congresses), embodying the ideal of unity in diversity.

This ecosystem, as Blanke's essay shows, is a real-world laboratory for peaceful coexistence.

Jacobsen: Have there been neutral lingua francas in authoritarian regimes?

Simeone: Yes, but their "neutrality" is always contingent and often compromised.

* Esperanto itself has a fraught history here. In the Soviet Union under Stalin, it was initially tolerated (even promoted by some state organs for international revolution) but was later brutally suppressed as a suspected tool of "cosmopolitanism" and espionage. Its neutrality made it a threat.

* Russian in the USSR or German in Nazi-occupied Europe were imposed as lingua francas but were tools of domination, not neutrality.

* A true neutral lingua franca is extremely difficult in an authoritarian context because such regimes demand ideological conformity and control over communication. Any language that facilitates uncontrolled, international contact is viewed with suspicion.

Jacobsen: What is the current state and output of freethinker groups in Esperantujo?

Simeone: As detailed in Blanke's essay, the organized freethought movement within Esperanto, centred around ATEO (World Atheist Esperanto Organization), is active but niche. Its output includes:

* The bulletin *Ateismo*: Publishing articles on secularism, criticism of religion, and reports on global atheist movements.

* Conference Activities: Holding meetings during World Esperanto Congresses.

* Online Presence: Maintaining websites and discussion forums.

The state is one of steady, dedicated activism rather than mass movement. Its strength lies in its international network and in its ability to disseminate ideas directly in the language.

Jacobsen: After the Fédération Nationale de la Libre Pensée resolutions (2001, 2005), what initiatives followed?

Simeone: The FNLP resolutions were significant symbolic endorsements. The following initiatives have included:

* Continued Advocacy: Groups like the Esperanto Commission within the French libre pensée movement continue to promote the language.

* International Outreach: Linking with the International Association of Freethought (IAFT), which has an Esperanto section.

* Ideological Promotion: Framing Esperanto not just as a tool but as an idea aligned with freethought values: reason, internationalism, and equality. The work of Dominique Simeone, as cited by Blanke, is key here, positioning Esperanto as a "path to humanism."

Jacobsen: From a language-justice and human-rights lens, how should humanist organizations position Esperanto relative to English?

Simeone: Humanist organizations should champion linguistic diversity and equity. This implies a critical stance towards the hegemony of English.

* The Problem with English: Its dominance creates an inherent inequality. Native speakers have a massive advantage, and it acts as a vector for Anglo-cultural norms, marginalizing other perspectives. This is a language justice issue.

* The Esperanto Proposal: Esperanto offers a radically fair alternative. As a learned second language for all, it puts everyone on a more equal footing. Its simplicity and regularity make it more accessible globally than English.

* The Position: Humanist organizations should promote awareness of this linguistic inequality. They should recognize Esperanto as a serious proposal addressing a core humanist concern—fairness and universal rights. They can support their study as a practical embodiment of their principles, even if they do not adopt it as a sole language.

Jacobsen: Which channels work for Esperanto outreach?

Simeone: The most effective channels are those that leverage its community and idealistic appeal:

* Online Platforms: Websites, social media groups, YouTube channels, and podcasts are crucial for modern outreach.

* Free Online Courses: Platforms like lernu! and Duolingo have been immensely successful in introducing the language to hundreds of thousands.

* Local Clubs and Meetings: Personal contact remains powerful.

* Cultural Events: Concerts, literary publications, and film showings showcase the living culture.

* Targeted Advocacy: Engaging with groups already aligned with its values: humanists, pacifists, educators, and NGOs focused on international development and justice.

Jacobsen: How do you assess critiques of Eurocentrism in Esperanto?

Simeone: The critique is valid but often overstated and ahistorical.

* Valid Because: The lexicon is overwhelmingly derived from European Romance and Germanic languages. Its core semantics and cultural references are European.

* Overstated Because:

1. Phonology and Grammar: Its grammar (agglutinative, regular, with an accusative case) has features common to non-European languages like Turkish, Japanese, and Swahili, making it often easier for speakers of those languages than European inflected languages.

2. A Tool, Not a Culture: Esperanto is a framework. As its use spreads, it is increasingly being used to express non-European realities and concepts. The culture of *Esperantujo* is becoming genuinely global.

3. The Alternative: The realistic alternative to a Eurocentric *planned* language is the overwhelming dominance of a Eurocentric *natural* language (English). Esperanto, because it is easier to learn, remains a less Eurocentric option in terms of access and equity.

Jacobsen: When should humanist groups choose Esperanto over machine translation?

Simeone: The choice is not binary, but the priority should be based on the goal:

| Goal | Recommended Tool | Reason |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Translating a document quickly for a wide audience | Machine Translation | Speed, reach, practicality. |

| Building a community across languages | Esperanto | Creates shared identity and direct, equal communication. |

| Hosting an international meeting | Esperanto (with interpretation) | Fosters a sense of fellowship and active participation. |

| Internal communication within a diverse group | Esperanto | Builds a cohesive, neutral, and equitable long-term culture. |

| Disseminating information one-way | MT (into multiple languages) | Efficient for broad dissemination. |

Humanist groups should use Esperanto when the goal is to *create community* and *embody the principle of equality* in communication.

Jacobsen: What is the strongest evidence that planned language study has a propaedeutic effect?

Simeone: The strongest evidence comes from decades of controlled studies, often called the "Esperanto-Experiment."

* Findings: Groups of students who study Esperanto for one year and then a European language for three years consistently outperform groups who study the European language for four years straight.

* Reason: Learning the simple, logical structure of Esperanto provides learners with an explicit understanding of grammatical concepts (accusative case, agreement, etc.). This metalinguistic awareness makes them better language learners overall. It acts as a "linguistic primer."

Jacobsen: What would persuade skeptics?

Simeone: Skeptics need to move beyond the myth that Esperanto "failed." Persuasion requires different approaches:

* For the Pragmatist: Data on the propaedeutic effect. Evidence of its use in practice (e.g., in travel, professional networks, families).

* For the Idealist: The power of the community and culture. Invite them to a congress or local meetup to experience the unique atmosphere of international fellowship.

* For the Linguist: The elegance and effectiveness of its design. It can create new words and express complex ideas with clarity.

* For the Humanist: The argument from language justice and equity. Frame it as a practical project for reducing global inequality.

Jacobsen: What are the goals for "Esperanto × Humanism"?

Simeone: The goals for this synergy are profound and practical:

1. Idealistic: To actively build a model of a rational, compassionate, and truly international human community, prefiguring the kind of world humanists want to create.

2. Practical: To provide the humanist movement with a neutral, equitable, and effective tool for internal communication and international outreach, freeing it from dependence on any national language.

3. Philosophical: To deepen the humanist commitment to cosmopolitanism and equality by embodying it in a linguistic practice.

4. Collaborative: To create a strong, visible alliance between the two movements, demonstrating that the pursuit of a better world requires both rational ideals (humanism) and practical tools for connection (Esperanto).

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Dominique.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is a blogger on Vocal with over 130 posts on the platform. He is the Founder and Publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978–1–0692343; 978–1–0673505) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369–6885). He writes for International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN, 0018–7399; Online: ISSN, 2163–3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), Humanist Perspectives (ISSN: 1719–6337), A Further Inquiry (SubStack), Vocal, Medium, The Good Men Project, The New Enlightenment Project, The Washington Outsider, rabble.ca, and other media. His bibliography index can be found via the Jacobsen Bank at In-Sight Publishing,, comprising more than 10,000 articles, interviews, and republications across more than 200 outlets. He has served in national and international leadership roles within humanist and media organizations, held several academic fellowships, and currently serves on several boards. He is a member in good standing in numerous media organizations, including the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada (CRA: 88916 2541 RR0001), Reporters Without Borders (SIREN: 343 684 221/SIRET: 343 684 221 00041/EIN: 20–0708028), and others.