Final answer:
Rushdie objects to "Commonwealth English" because it reinforces cultural divisions, supporting a hierarchy favoring standardized English and marginalizing diverse dialects.
Step-by-step explanation:
Rushdie objects to the term "Commonwealth English" because it does not simply mis-describe; it reinforces cultural divisions. This harmful effect is important to recognize in the context of how language and power dynamics impact societies.
The idea that a single "proper" English exists can undermine the value of diverse English dialects and accents, consequently marginalizing speakers of non-standard varieties. By insisting on a uniform standard, which often reflects the language of those in power, a hierarchy is created that privileges certain cultural groups over others, leading to social and cultural divisions and inequities.
These dynamics also tie into the broader patterns of corporate colonialism and globalization, which can have both positive and negative effects. While globalization can facilitate international trade and promote economic development, it may also result in the erosion of local cultures and contribute to environmental degradation.
The spread of the English language, driven in part by the influence of American corporate interests, can serve as a double-edged sword by enabling communication and economic activity across borders while also contributing to the homogenization of global culture.