Navigating Language Sensitivity: Words We Should Rethink
Written on
Understanding Language Sensitivity
A few months ago, I penned a somewhat popular defense of adverbs for The Writing Cooperative. The feedback was lively, with some playful critiques and, importantly, insightful suggestions from a close friend.
My friend, a DEI and Restorative Justice consultant, often reviews my work for sensitivity, but I had never thought to consult her on grammar-related pieces.
“I enjoyed it,” she said, “It was delightful and very much your style, but I did have some concerns about certain words.”
Immediately, I wondered which terms she found problematic. She identified a word that I had never considered offensive, one that I frequently used during my upbringing in the 70s and 80s: spastic. I had even extended its use to the adverb form, spastically.
She then recounted how Lizzo faced backlash for using a shortened version of this term and how she adeptly navigated the situation. I was shocked; it was never my intention to be ableist or cause offense, aside from perhaps to those who critique adverb usage. Consequently, I removed the term and opted for a different choice.
Words in Plain Sight
It’s all too easy to fall into verbal pitfalls. “These words are lurking just out of view,” my friend pointed out.
Take, for instance, the term gyp, which we frequently used in the 70s and 80s to mean cheating someone, unaware that it was derogatory towards the Romany community. Similarly, the word spooky, often used around Halloween, carries troubling racial implications. The term sherpa can unintentionally belittle the actual Sherpa people.
Numerous colloquial expressions can also be problematic: peanut gallery, Paddy wagon, basket case, blacklist, whitelist, and master bedroom. Even the phrase hip hip hooray has historical ties to Nazi ideology and anti-Semitism.
Critics of Language Evolution
There are certainly those who believe that the removal of certain words from our lexicon has gone too far. George Packer, writing in The Atlantic last year, criticized the rise of equity-language guidelines proliferating among major institutions, especially nonprofits.
He raises a valid point. In my experience within the nonprofit sector, I’ve witnessed significant shifts in language over the past decade or so. While some changes, like adopting people-first language (e.g., saying “person with a mental disability” instead of “the mentally ill”), are positive, there are growing concerns about whether the removal of certain terms is itself harmful and where it might lead.
Packer notes, “In its zeal, the Sierra Club has clear-cut a whole national park of words. Terms like urban, vibrant, hardworking, and brown bag have been deemed subtly racist. Y’all has replaced the patriarchal ‘you guys,’ and ‘elevate voices’ now feels condescending instead of uplifting.”
What’s a Writer to Do?
Language is evolving at an unprecedented speed. While this has always been the case, the current pace feels particularly accelerated. Many of these changes are necessary corrections aimed at fostering respect and understanding.
Yet, collectively, these adjustments pose challenging questions: Who decides which words are permissible? Which terms are exclusive to specific groups? Does intent hold significance? At what point do restrictions on language stifle freedom of expression? Can we go too far?
Many writers, including myself, grapple with these queries. My goal is to inform, entertain, and evoke genuine feelings in readers, not to inflict harm, even though I recognize the inherent risks of sharing words publicly.
And what happens when someone crosses the line?
We’ve seen numerous instances of writers facing severe backlash for missteps, whether intentional or not, often leading to a social media uproar.
An Ongoing Conversation
Where I’ve landed is this: I can strive to stay informed and maintain a list of terms to avoid. I can commit to causing no harm and correcting my mistakes when they arise.
However, I hope that before we eliminate certain words entirely, we can engage in dialogue about which terms might still hold value or have drifted away from their harmful origins.
For instance, the phrase “rule of thumb” has often been deemed offensive, supposedly referencing a rod used to beat wives. While this is widely thought to be untrue, even if it were factual, could one argue that its common usage in contexts like carpentry outweighs its origins?
The Importance of Context
Context is crucial. Certain words and phrases are clearly inappropriate and should never be used. If you’re not a sociopath, you likely know what these terms are.
But who has the authority to decide on others? Expressions like cakewalk, falling on deaf ears, no can do, black sheep, blackball, black market, black magic, and even black humor are all under scrutiny. Some suggest using “gallows humor” instead, but is that truly a better alternative?
How do we determine which expressions remain and which are discarded? Should terms with implicit good versus evil implications be reconsidered? Should we retain phrases that refer solely to black as a color, such as black tie or little black dress? How about those expressions that predate the usage of “black” as an identity?
When I asked my friend where to draw the line, she admitted uncertainty but emphasized the importance of questioning and learning about the various "-isms" embedded in our language.
Engaging in Dialogue
I believe context matters. Can we trust that most people will recognize what’s meant to offend versus what isn’t? I also wonder how much those we fear offending actually care about colloquial expressions.
Moreover, if we’re making changes, shouldn’t they yield meaningful results? For example, if retailers decided to swap spooky for eerie or unsettling during Halloween 2024, would it truly make a difference in lives? If we’re going to invest effort in altering our language, shouldn’t it lead to tangible improvement?
It’s likely that some phrases will fade away, replaced by terms that resonate more with contemporary audiences. Linguist Robert MacNeil aptly stated, “Change is legitimate and inevitable, for our language is a mighty river, picking up silt and flotsam here and discarding it there, but growing ever wider and richer.”
A Call for Conversation
Clearly, I’ve posed more questions than answers here. Complex issues require thoughtful dialogue—a collective endeavor to find language that is at least “good enough.” English, as we know, will never be perfect, and it won’t remain static.
So how do we initiate this conversation?
I recognize there is a strong desire for such discussions. As I crafted this essay, something interesting occurred: everyone who read it had suggestions, insights, or ideas to contribute. No one remained neutral. My audience was eager to engage, yet when it comes to having a broader societal conversation, many of us feel lost.
Most of us aspire for progress and justice. If we could agree that language will never be flawless, perhaps we could redirect our energy toward using words to enhance lives. Instead of canceling every outdated term that might cause offense, we could prioritize employing language to bridge divides, propose solutions, and express our desire to understand and care.
Achieving this would necessitate curiosity and courage. Is it possible?
I’m uncertain, and I doubt anyone has a definitive answer. But one truth remains: language can falter for anyone, regardless of background. We are all fallible humans, often stumbling over our words.
If we could build upon this shared experience, perhaps we could draw closer rather than drift apart. I believe that most of us wish to connect. So let me pose the question that truly needs to be asked:
Can we converse?
This first video discusses language sensitivity and the words we shouldn't use in our everyday lives.
The second video explores ten words that are becoming increasingly problematic in contemporary discourse.