Native-speakerism is an ideology that upholdsthe idea that so-called “native speakers” are the best models and teachers of English because they represent a “Western culture” from which spring the ideals both of English and of the methodology for teaching it (Holliday, 2005, p. 6). As an ideology, it is a system of ideas that represents a distorted worldview that supports a particular vested interest. The vested interest in the case of nativespeakerism is the promotion by the ELT industry of the so-called “native speaker” brand. The realization that this is an ideologically constructed brand derives from Phillipson’s (1992) linguistic imperialism thesis that the concept of the “native speaker” as a superior model and teacher was explicitly constructed by American and British aid agencies in the 1960s to support their agenda of spreading English as a global product.

Further indication that the “native speaker” brand is an ideological construction is that the native-non-native speaker distinction is not self-evident on technical linguistic or even nationality grounds. It is instead a professionally popularized distinction that has been falsely associated with cultural orientation (Kubota & Lin, 2006). Teachers who are labeled “native speakers” have been falsely idealized as organized and autonomous in fitting with the common yet mistaken description of so-called “individualist cultures” of the West; while teachers who are labeled “non-native speakers” are demonized as deficient in these attributes in fitting with the common yet mistaken description of so-called “collectivist cultures” of the non-West (Holliday, 2005, p. 19, citing Kubota, Kumaravadivelu, Nayar, and Pennycook). The collectivist stereotype is itself considered to be a Western construction of non-Western cultural deficiency. An example of this is a British teacher’s reference to a superior “native speaker” “birthright” at the same time as criticizing, albeit without foundation, not only the linguistic and pedagogic performance, but also the cultural background and proficiency of his “non-native speaker” colleagues (Holliday & Aboshiha, 2009, p. 667).

The Othering of teachers who are labeled “non-native speakers” therefore results in a cultural disbelief—not believing in their ability to teach English within a Western, and indeed superficially constructed “learning group ideal” that is characterized by “active” oral expression, initiation, self-direction, and students working in groups and pairs (Holliday, 2005, p. 44). The association of the “non-native speaker” label with deficiency is also deeply rooted within a wider and equally mistaken Western perception that people from non-Western cultural backgrounds are unable to be critical and self-determined.

Excerpt extracted and adapted from: https://adrianholliday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nativespeakerism-proofs.pdf