I recently came across the website of the British Sociological Association. They have guidelines and suggestions concerning non-racist, non-sexist and "ablist" language to be used in their journals and in papers and conferences....
In Anti-Sexist Language it is sexist to say anything remotely connected with men. You can't say "one man show" even if it is a one man show. You must say one person show. You can't say manhours. You must say workhours. You can't have a master copy. You must have an original. Let's not mention that the master copy may be a different thing from the original. You can't even say disseminate. You must say broadcast, inform or publicise; none of which are the same thing. Their won STATEMENT OF ETHICAL PRACTICE FOR THE BRITISH SOCIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION includes
Members should be aware that they have some responsibility for the use to which their data may be put and for how the research is to be disseminated.In Anti-Racist Language you mustn't say American to refer only to someone from the the USA, when strictly the term America applies to the continents of North and South America. Can't say British because
However, the idea of "British" also implies a false sense of unity. Many Scots, Welsh and Irish resist being identified as BritishLet's ignore that many do not resist being "British". Apparently also I can't call myself white because
Whiteness refers to white consciousness - the "silent", pervasive, cultural norm that informs and shapes our racial ideology. Whiteness is constructed as a formless, empty cultural space that is neutral, natural and normative.Can I get that in English? Apparently the term "African-Caribbean" applies to black British people. "Afro-Caribbean" is out of date; and of course you can't say "black British". Now you might ask who is saying this. The anti-racist page is provided by the BSA Black Women's Sub-Committee. Would I suggest they might be racist themselves? Yes, actually I would suggest that.Whiteness, because it is an unnamed, hegemonic position of privilege and power, becomes the point of reference for measuring others, unlike "blackness" which has been named in the language of white signification. Whiteness has defied scrutiny as it does not seem like a culture as everyone is apparently the same.
Next we come to the Ablist and Non-Disablist Language. The terms ablist and disablist are new to me. I've tried 3 online dictionaries and couldn't find either word. (Dare I say it? I looked in both British and American dictionaries. There I said it). Disablist, according to the BSA, appears to be anyone who over emphases or is prejudiced against disability, such as referring to a disabled person rather than a person with a disability. No-one suffers from any disability, but they have a disability. No-one is mentally ill or a mental patient, they are a mental health service user. This can't drive you nuts, but it can make you a mental health service user. I am not an able bodied person, but a non-disabled person. I would suggest there is a difference between being able-bodied and not being disabled. Strangely I can't define someone as disabled, but they can define me as being non-disabled. Ablist would. by implication, be a term for someone prejudiced against the able-bodied. Sounds like the right term for however wrote this.
Strangely there is no reference that I can find to any language being homophobic, normally a favourite of politically corrects. If anyone can suggest why, please comment below.
Of course, some of this is arguably various groups saying what they wish to be called. Black people can be called African-Caribbean if they want; although I might object the word "British" ought to be in there. It does sound like they are rejecting Britishness, but if they want to be called African-Caribbean instead of black I can do that. The problem comes if different people want to be called different things. If some people are black, while others are Afro-Caribbean while others are African-Caribbean and they may change it again, don't blame me if I get it wrong. I'm doing my best, but if you want to change the language on a regular basis and call me racist if I get it wrong, then I suggest looking in the mirror if you want to see a racist.
Yet the arguments against being British is that some people object to it. That is where the BSA starts to tell me , and other people, what I can be called. Unlike black people and disabled people I don't get to decide what I am called. I say I do.
Often the demands seem simply pernickety. They are not really suggestions. If you want your paper published with them, they are demands. People from the United States have historically been called Americans with North Americans and South Americans reserved for people from the respective continents. So far as I know most people don't have a problem with that. Using the word disseminate is not sexist; suggesting it is; is.
To sum up, most of this is people deciding on behalf of various groups what these groups can be called. The groups in question don't get a say. This is not about getting it right and being fair.
In practice under BSA Study Groups you find a lesbian study group and violence against women study group. Not only nothing for gays but also nothing for heterosexuals and no violence against men group, or violence against children group. This suggests to me where their priorities lie.
On some pages they provide a helpful table of alternatives so I've added my own here.
| Chairman | Rich b*st*rd |
| The working man | Alimony provider |
| Working mother | Someone who thinks men should work harder |
| Disseminate | What is done with Playboy |
| Handicap | Golfing term |
| Invalid | Almost anything typed into Microsoft software |
| Black | Colour of Model T Ford |
| White | Colour of chicken breast |
| American | Someone who thinks everyone likes baseball |
| British | Someone who thinks everyone likes cricket |
| Sociologist | Twit (idiot) |
Comments