The war on language: Why is our vocabulary being policed?

Woke vocabulary The new Staffordshire Police inclusive language guide[1] discourages using the word “policeman”. “In general,” it urges, “we word our content to avoid masculine and feminine pronouns (“he” or “she”)”. Gender-neutral language is always preferable, even when talking about a police officer who is a man.

Elsewhere in the 12-page document, the tenets of “people-first language” – the idea that everyone is first and foremost a person, not their disability or other characteristics – abound in instructions not to use words such as “diabetic person” and “mentally ill”; “person with diabetes” and “person with mental health problems” are encouraged instead. Communities with high poverty rates are not “disadvantaged”, but “under-resourced”. Christians, Jews and Muslims should be replaced by “Christian people” and so on, while “Christian name” is a non-inclusive no-no.

The document is the latest in a recent spate of similar guides handed by organisations to employees, instructing them to cleanse their language of any words or phrases which could be deemed derogatory or exclusive. Many, like the Staffordshire police force’s guide, have been accused of “virtue signalling”, attracting derision and even anger at what some see as the imposition of restrictions on freedom of speech. These guides aren’t a new phenomenon in either the public or private sector, but their proliferation has increased greatly in recent years as part of a wider trend which some regard as the “woke cultural revolution” and others simply as an attempt to make workplaces reflect the pace of change in society.

‘It’s right that we re-evaluate the language we use’

According to Cathy Hastie, an HR expert and lecturer at the University of Derby, the documents are an acknowledgement by organisations that striving for diversity among its workforce isn’t enough; more important is the culture within it.

“People need to feel included – meaning valued, accepted and supported – once they’ve got the job,” she says. “Research shows language plays a critical part in that; in retaining people, in their productivity and in overall organisational effectiveness. There’s a moral argument, and also a business one.” Story continues

She says the thinking behind language guides is: “If you want people to change, you need to set out your expectations and show them examples of what good practice looks like.” Reading these guides in detail, though, it’s not difficult to see why they might evoke strong responses from certain quarters. Most people understand that a careful, compassionate choice of words is part of addressing prejudice and inequality, and some of the phrases condemned in these documents should have long been consigned to history. “That’s a woman’s job” is an example from the Staffordshire Police guide, along with the equally offensive “cry like a girl”.

In an organisation such as the police, often criticised for displaying outdated values, few could argue with the logic in encouraging greater sensitivity among staff. Other examples, however, make treating people with consideration seem fraught with myriad potential pitfalls, often hinging on what could be perceived as tiny linguistic distinctions. “Elderly people”, to give an example from Oxfam’s much-lampooned guide, issued earlier this year, is deemed offensive, but “older people” is not. The difference between the two may be difficult for some to discern, but, says Hastie: “It’s about how it makes someone feel.

Society has changed – people are living longer and when they hit a certain age, they may not feel or behave like an ‘elderly’ person. So it’s right that we re-evaluate the language we use to reflect that.” The Oxfam Inclusive Language Guide[2], published in March this year, seemed deliberately designed to bait the tabloids, even apologising in its introduction for being written in and about the English language, “the language of a colonising nation”.

It goes on: “We acknowledge the Anglo-supremacy of the sector as part of its coloniality,” adding: “We recognise that the dominance of English is one of the key issues that must be addressed in order to decolonise our ways of working and shift power.” It urges employees to avoid the word “headquarters” (as it “implies a colonial power dynamic”); “aid sector” (which “cements ideology where an agent with resources gives support on a charitable basis”); and “field trip” (because it can “reinforce colonial attitudes”). It also seeks to replace simple phrases such as “migration challenge” and “refugee crisis” with unwieldy formulations such as “migration as a complex phenomenon”.

Some guides’ edicts can be downright confusing. NHS guidance[3] bans the word BAME, which stands for Black And Minority Ethnic, despite it only coming into use a relatively short time ago. Its reasoning, that “minority ethnic” is too broad and that it’s better to be as specific as possible, is clear and fair, but is undermined by its recommendation that “ethnic minorities” be used instead. In the US, where the culture wars continue to escalate, outrage has been sparked by moves such as the San Francisco Board of Supervisors replacing the word felon [convicted criminal] with “justice-involved person” and the environmental organisation the Sierra Club denouncing words including poor, urban, vibrant and migrant.

In an article for The Atlantic, journalist George Packer argued that we risk replacing vivid language with jargon, and in doing so, fail to create empathy for the groups being discussed.

‘We’re not censoring people, just encouraging people to learn and be considerate’

Of course, language is constantly evolving, but rather than emerging from the changing way people communicate in broader society, these edicts are imposed from above by a select group of people. Dr Laura Bailey, senior lecturer in English language and linguistics at the University of Kent, says that waiting for language to change organically is a slow process. “Once we’re in our late teens, our language is set and doesn’t change very much throughout our adult lives, which means for language to change in the culture at large, we have to wait for new generations to come along,” she says. “That’s unless we change it consciously, which we can all do.

“Research shows that the words we use affect the way we feel, even if it’s subconscious – cleaning lady and chairman, for instance, perpetuate the stereotype that men are more capable and should be in charge. Research also demonstrates clearly that explicit intervention – saying, ‘Don’t use these terms, use these instead’ – does make a difference. By changing our language, we can try to change the culture.”

This is precisely why some instinctively abhor these guides, viewing them as a tool of indoctrination into an overly politically correct ideology. Dr Bailey says she can understand why language is such a flashpoint: “Our language is part of our identity; it’s who we are. So, if somebody says to us, ‘This word you’re using is offensive,’ we feel they’re saying, ‘You’re offensive’.

Usually, that’s not what’s meant – it’s more, ‘Please can you try to use something else?'” Although some of the guides’ suggestions undoubtedly go beyond what many people over the age of 40 would recognise as reasonable, Hastie says that, in the best cases, they are the result of trying to adapt based on what different communities say they prefer. “It should be about trying to listen to and understand different perspectives and do whatever we can to avoid offending people, acknowledging that we won’t get it right every time,” she explains.

She points out that employees won’t be fired if they fail to use the language set out in the guides. “We’re not censoring people, just encouraging people to learn and be considerate,” she says. However, she admits the guides are far from easy to implement in practice. “It’s a long-term process,” she says. Although these guides seem to be trying to force change at a rate some find alarming, “If we look at workplaces over the past few decades, change has been slow – we’re still far from where we need to be on issues such as the gender pay gap.

So perhaps we need to speed up.” Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism.

Try The Telegraph free for 1 month, then enjoy 1 year for just £9 with our US-exclusive offer.[4]

References

1. ^ language guide (www.telegraph.co.uk)
2. ^ Oxfam Inclusive Language Guide (www.telegraph.co.uk)
3. ^ NHS guidance (www.telegraph.co.uk)
4. ^ Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism.

   Try The Telegraph free for 1 month, then enjoy 1 year for just £9 with our US-exclusive offer. (secure.telegraph.co.uk)