Category: Uncategorized

Introduction

Today, we are facing many changes in our lives, especially in language learning. English has become a global language, and people are often expected to be able to speak English both at school and in the workplace. 

However, the continuous process of learning a language is not easy. One major challenge is that we have become heavily occupied with technology rather than social interaction. This situation is concerning. We use technology every day, especially artificial intelligence (AI), as a tool to assist language learning, and for many learners, this has become the primary method of study.

This phenomenon represents a digital paradox. While technology is designed to support human development, it often leads us away from authentic human interaction. As a result, we risk moving to the opposite side of what it means to be human — communicative, social, and relational. In this way, we no longer function as we naturally should.

The Rise of Technology Usage in Learning

Technology has become an essential part of our daily lives. We do homework using laptops, communicate with AI chatbots, and speak with AI representatives. Ironically, much of our time is spent interacting with artificial intelligence rather than engaging in face-to-face communication with family and friends.

After prolonged and continuous exposure to digital technologies—ranging from laptops and personal computers to smartphones, tablets, and other smart devices—individuals increasingly exhibit tendencies toward individualism rather than sociability. This transformation is deeply concerning, given that human beings are inherently relational and fundamentally oriented toward social connection. Since the earliest stages of civilization, human existence has been sustained and defined by interaction, dialogue, and communal exchange.

Ironically, many individuals gravitate toward language-learning applications during moments of loneliness, seeking connection through digital means. Yet solitary engagement with a screen may inadvertently intensify feelings of isolation, reinforcing the very detachment it was intended to resolve rather than genuinely alleviating it.

Language as a Social Phenomenon

English has become the most widely used language across the globe. In addition, Mandarin and Japanese are gaining increasing prominence as languages to learn, particularly due to their economic and cultural influence. In the business world, individuals are often expected to communicate in at least one foreign language in order to remain competitive. Without language, communication would inevitably deteriorate, rendering individuals incapable of exchanging ideas, knowledge, and information in a meaningful and effective manner. Language functions not merely as a tool of expression, but as the foundation of social organization and cultural continuity.

In countries such as Japan, communication is predominantly conducted in the national language, as individuals are socialized and educated from an early age within a relatively linguistically homogeneous environment. English, while taught academically, is often treated as a foreign language rather than a medium of daily interaction. By contrast, in the United States, linguistic diversity is far more visible. As a nation shaped by waves of immigration, it encompasses speakers of English, Spanish, French, et cetera. This multicultural composition fosters a multilingual landscape in which language use reflects the country’s demographic complexity and global interconnectedness.

Each country possesses its own language and distinct modes of expression, reflecting its unique culture and social norms. Ultimately, language is a fundamental human necessity, enabling global connection, cooperation, and mutual understanding in an increasingly interconnected world.

Efficiency of Culture and Language

In the contemporary technological era, human life is increasingly interconnected through the internet, the Internet of Things (IoT), and artificial intelligence. One of the most convenient ways to learn a foreign language today is by interacting with AI through laptops, personal computers, or smartphones. Learners simply need to download an AI-based application and communicate with a virtual personal assistant, allowing them to practice the target language repeatedly without temporal or spatial limitations.

Furthermore, for those who wish to interact with speakers from distant locations, video conferencing platforms such as Zoom, Google Meet, or FaceTime provide opportunities for language practice, although these services often require financial investment. As an alternative, face-to-face language learning remains an option. In many developed countries, it is common for learners to meet tutors in informal settings, such as cafés or public spaces. This practice has grown significantly, contributing to the rapid expansion of language courses and tutoring services.

In Japan, for example, various online platforms allow learners to book private tutors and make advance payments before beginning their courses. In contrast, in developing countries such as Indonesia, online tutor booking systems are less commonly used due to concerns over security and trust. As a result, many learners continue to rely on traditional methods of finding tutors, such as direct, in-person arrangements. 

Although learners have become highly adept at utilizing digital devices for language acquisition, this increasing dependence has inadvertently diminished their engagement in real-world social interaction. Consequently, many develop social awkwardness and a lack of confidence in face-to-face communication — an outcome that is, in many ways, deeply tragic. The digital sphere, originally created to foster connection and bring individuals closer together, paradoxically assumes a negative dimension by distancing those who are physically near from one another. Rather than strengthening human bonds, it weakens them. This contradiction is what we identify as a digital paradox.

Toward a Balanced Approach

Recognizing the digital paradox does not mean rejecting technology. Instead, it calls for balance. Digital tools can serve as powerful foundations for vocabulary acquisition, grammar practice, and listening exposure. However, they should complement, not substitute, social interaction.

Learners may integrate:

• Online language exchange partnerships
• Conversation clubs
• Voice messages with native speakers
• Classroom or community-based discussions

By combining technological efficiency with human interaction, learners can develop both linguistic accuracy and communicative confidence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while digital technology has made foreign language learning more efficient and accessible, excessive dependence on it may weaken the social essence of language itself. When interaction is replaced by screens, learners risk losing confidence and communicative authenticity in real-life situations. This tension between technological convenience and human connection ultimately defines the digital paradox.

---

Irkani Enrieta Magdalena is an alumnus of Tokyo International University, where she specialized in Business and Economics. During her studies, she worked as a Supply Chain Operator at UNIQLO in Japan, gaining strong operational skills in a fast-paced environment. She is currently working at an investment company in Jakarta, Indonesia, where she applies her expertise in business strategy and financial analysis.

Entering his second year of presidency, Prabowo Subianto’s approach and future outlook has sparked numerous debates regarding Indonesia’s direction of foreign policy and presence in the global stage. The altercation of Prabowo’s neorealist approach has brought Indonesia into a new trajectory as a middle power. From attaining presidency of the United Nations Human Rights Council, to engaging with Donald Trump’s Board of Peace, Prabowo’s advancements and ambition attempts to manage multilateralism within the global stage all while maintaining domestic commitments. Yet, with Indonesia having a greater medium for utilising strategic power, this then poses the question of Prabowo’s commitments to maintaining moral alignment and preservation of human rights amidst plans of international engagement.

With plans to prosper Indonesia’s future, his priorities become evident—to strengthen Indonesia’s role in international affairs. It’s undoubtedly acknowledged that with the president’s military background and firm position on national security, Prabowo’s leadership demonstrates a pivotal turning point on Indonesia’s foreign policy going forward. Echoing words by the Human Rights Minister, Natalius Pigai, during his visit at the Indonesian Embassy in Tokyo with members of the Indonesian community, he further highlights Prabowo’s pursuit of a realist approach: believing that Indonesia’s interest may be strengthened through active political ideologies — allowing the reinforcement of mental resilience and readiness. 

Analyzed through a neorealist lens, Prabowo’s foreign policy aligns with the foundation of balancing strategies that seek states to maximize their own security whilst maintaining its free and active tradition. According to Kenneth Waltz, an American political scientist, he affirms that states moderate their pursuit of power for survival to maintain the status quo—henceforth, it becomes evident that Indonesia’s involvement between major powerhouses are adopted to avoid vulnerability and enhance the nation’s international standing. Through initiatives in navigating interests of influential power states such as China and the United States, as well as partnership talks of military accords separately with Russia and France, Prabowo’s efforts and recent executions underscores his neorealist’s approach in diversifying Indonesia’s presence and affiliation amidst foreign actors. 

Such a neorealist approach becomes critical in understanding how the international world churns great-power politics that’ll shape the future of our society, as we currently are seeing a downfall of multilateralism. While power states have reigned dominance over multilateral systems, the current political climate adds further a diverse set of actors. Having both the United Nations and intergovernmental organizations seemingly fatally blocked in times of crisis, the cohesion of international politics remains unstructured—and often, disruptive. Therefore, this gives middle powers—such as Indonesia, a role in systematically reviving global multilateralism. Seeing the world through Prabowo’s realist lens, his framework and decision makes grounds for believing that Indonesia’s newfound involvement may provide prospects for global stability. Though a sliver of realism may be warranted in hopes of potentially advancing international cooperation, given the current political state of the world, it’s imperative to remember that an approach by middle powers must have the capability of enforcing strategic balance amidst mixed motives and hidden self-interest.

The attempts of integrating multilateralism as a middle power can be seen executed earlier this year, with Indonesia given the privilege to be elected with the presidency of the United Nations Human Rights Council as an acknowledgement of its ability to morally lead a platform of human rights. However, Prabowo’s efforts to strategically place Indonesia at the outreach of dominant power with its presidency raises concerns on the administration’s deliberate strategic motive, particularly of status play to wager institutional influence. As such a position allows Indonesia a medium to instead manage multilateral politics rather than hedging human rights outcomes. While the mandate of the presidency primarily acts to be procedural and facilitative, the president has the principal responsibility—as well as influence, to vocalize human rights activities globally. However, for a country without a dominant reach of power, institutional authority becomes a calculated pathway to be maximized, as it orchestrates the environment where outcomes of global diplomacy are created.

Yet, while Indonesia’s presidency in the global stage showcases its moral obligations, human rights affairs on a domestic level remains continuously contested. Whether it be through a new criminal code taking effect or the restriction of expression by rights advocates, domestic controversies that frequently arise become reference points on Prabowo’s true motive. With a newfound spotlight by the public, Indonesia’s domestic human rights practices become a glimpse of whether its international role and credibility in the Human Rights Council may be perceived as truly authentic—or merely an act.

Following the shift in a new leadership approach, recent events shedding a light toward Donald Trump’s Board of Peace and Indonesia’s decision to engage with his multinational stabilization force for Gaza further triggers more alarms towards the public in understanding Prabowo’s decision. One may argue that his means of support reflect a neorealist approach and compromise with the only power state capable of moving the needle towards enforcing a peace deal, given the United States’ position to constantly divert substantive change towards affairs in the middle east. However, widespread scrutiny continues to grow as Indonesia’s decades-long effort to strengthen its philosophical foundations of diplomacy and position itself as a mediator clashes with the president’s newfound strategic decision. Drawing the nation towards a politically sensitive human rights dilemma that leads to both constitutional and moral tension. 

With that being said, in our current political reality where countries attempt to use state power to cooperate in advancing multilateralism all while maintaining their own future stability, one’s collective security and shared beliefs with others become a long-standing interest for middle-power states like Indonesia. Furthermore, taking consideration of Prabowo’s realist approach and Indonesia’s speculated motive in the Human Rights Council, it becomes increasingly vital to carefully navigate the country’s position as a stable, influential player. Prabowo’s foundation of strategies for Indonesia both offers opportunities and risks for the credibility of human rights protection, particularly amidst managing its domestic commitments alongside the nation’s newfound significant presence on international forums. Ultimately, the president’s credibility and commitment to ensuring a prosperous future for Indonesia lies in the ability to finding a medium between maintaining peace and moral alignment; if Indonesia will be able to simultaneously preserve its attempt of survival in such cutthroat political environment all while as abiding to moral foundations pioneered by the UN Charters.

---

Isabelle Teresa Lensun is a 1st year International Relations student at Tokyo International University. She currently serves as the Head of Academics Division at PPI Korda Kanto.