Equality: it's time everyone woke up
We’ve all seen it - the term ‘political correctness’ or the word ‘woke’ or the abbreviation ‘PC’ being thrown about in tabloid headlines, and it seems that not a week goes by without political correctness or ‘wokeness’ going ‘too far’. It’s easy to be confused about what political correctness even means, whether it’s a good thing, and which types of people routinely complain about it, so let’s set the record straight. Political correctness or wokeness are typically labels that people throw out when they don’t like an aspect of change in society.
Don’t like having to pay women the same rates as men for the same job? Call it political correctness. Equal rights? political correctness. Have to get your head round new terms to describe sexuality or gender? Wokeness. Someone asking you to stop polluting the only world we have? Political correctness gone mad! Someone asking you to stop using racist, sexist or ableist language? Wokeness, obviously. Using these derogatory throwaways about ‘PC’ or ‘wokeness’ simply saves older or less thoughtful people having to stop and think about why change is necessary.
Back in the 1970s and 80s people initially resisted using 'firefighter' instead of 'fireman' and 'police officer' rather than 'policeman'. Now for most people this seems reasonable, putting out fires or fighting against crime aren’t things which are impacted by gender. Both men and women are capable of doing these jobs. Not making these changes can be problematic for the whole of society. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis teaches us that language can influence the way we think, so in this instance only using ‘policemen’ gives the impression that women can’t be in the police force which is incorrect. This could then discourage women from aiming to join the police force resulting in a completely male dominated field. This sort of change has thankfully become more regular; for example when was the last time you heard a flight attendant being called a ‘steward' or a ‘stewardess’?
However there’s still a lot of work to do.
As children, of course you were asked that really annoying question ‘what would you like to do when you grow up’ when, really, you had no idea because you were 5 years old and only just learnt how to ride a bike, let alone be prepared to plan your entire future right there and then. However, when you did finally give an answer, did you ever consider a job associated with the opposite gender- e.g. a builder if you were a girl or a nurse if you were a boy? Probably not.
Often, people who are very opposed to language reform and to changing the way things are labelled tend to refer to George Orwell's book 1984 and Newspeak. A key aspect of George Orwell's brilliant book 1984 is that the ruling party in a totalitarian regime creates a language known as Newspeak to control the thoughts and actions of the general public. Is that what’s happening when we expect people to use inclusive language? No. If anything language change and reform is being used to try and open our minds . In 1984, Newspeak eliminated words such as ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ in efforts to crush any sense of potential rebellion, whereas 21st century language reform aims to encourage freedom and equality.
For example the N-word has been taboo to say if you’re not black for many years and this is down to a multitude of reasons such as a widespread recognition of the hateful history of the word and the government's enforcement of anti-discrimination laws as well as changes in social attitudes. However, there are pockets of non-black people who still use it despite the negative connotations. For the people at the back, this shows that language reform can never be completely controlled. Sadly, it also shows we’re still struggling with knuckle-dragging racists, which is rather more depressing.
Nowadays, when people may be asked to say ‘ guard’ instead of ‘ watchman ‘ or even ‘ house manager ‘ rather than ‘ housewife ‘ to create equality and to alleviate stereotypes, some may throw their hands up in the air, huff and puff and spread fear that we are ENTERING A DYSTOPIA like 1984. But does saying‘ guard ‘ rather than ‘ watchman ‘ really restrict one’s freedom of expression? The celebrated linguist Labov identified this type of change as a conscious change from above ( meaning a child, for example, is usually told by authority figures ,like their parents or teachers, not to use that sort of language) to avoid offence. Linguistic fundamentalists may argue this is all about banning particular words and crushing individual freedom by creating narrow rules to follow. However, we have to remember that this is not true - change isn't anything to worry or panic about because when this kind of language change occurs it’s not out of spite or done to make things difficult for people but it’s done to achieve an unprejudiced and diverse society for everyone to live in.
So the next time you speak to someone who moans about so-called ‘political correctness’ and says ‘it’s gone mad’, don’t just nod along. They mock the idea of having to think a bit harder about the words they use and take it so far as to ask sarcastic questions like ‘So, am I no longer allowed to ask for a “black” coffee?’. No, that isn’t what anyone is saying. We just want to create a society that is able to adapt and use language that isn't offensive, which is, you know, just a respectful and thoughtful thing to do. Any reasonable person would not only find this understandable but also a relatively easy change to make in their own vocabulary.
There is nothing ‘too woke’ about increased education around equality and inclusivity. Linguists have tried to pacify panic merchants for many years; the issue with generalisations like ‘man’ in ‘mankind’ is that people who do not fit into this category may believe that they are not able to do the same things or meet the same standards. A simple change from ‘postman’ to ‘postal worker’ may seem irrelevant or unnecessary for many, but it benefits society and the diversity within it. Language for inclusion is not, in fact, ‘wokeness’, rather it is vital for accepting others.
So is political correctness leading us into the dark descent of controlled speech? No, it’s not. Professor David Crystal suggested that ‘language is a window into society’. Society has been prejudiced and unequal in the past - and so has the language it produced. Now, we know better, so, naturally, language is going to have to catch up with the 21st century values of equality and general kindness.If everyone were a little more aware of different people’s experiences in society then maybe the use of respectful language would just been seen as ‘equal’ rather than ‘PC’ or ‘woke’.
Sixth form Language students
Don’t like having to pay women the same rates as men for the same job? Call it political correctness. Equal rights? political correctness. Have to get your head round new terms to describe sexuality or gender? Wokeness. Someone asking you to stop polluting the only world we have? Political correctness gone mad! Someone asking you to stop using racist, sexist or ableist language? Wokeness, obviously. Using these derogatory throwaways about ‘PC’ or ‘wokeness’ simply saves older or less thoughtful people having to stop and think about why change is necessary.
Back in the 1970s and 80s people initially resisted using 'firefighter' instead of 'fireman' and 'police officer' rather than 'policeman'. Now for most people this seems reasonable, putting out fires or fighting against crime aren’t things which are impacted by gender. Both men and women are capable of doing these jobs. Not making these changes can be problematic for the whole of society. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis teaches us that language can influence the way we think, so in this instance only using ‘policemen’ gives the impression that women can’t be in the police force which is incorrect. This could then discourage women from aiming to join the police force resulting in a completely male dominated field. This sort of change has thankfully become more regular; for example when was the last time you heard a flight attendant being called a ‘steward' or a ‘stewardess’?
However there’s still a lot of work to do.
As children, of course you were asked that really annoying question ‘what would you like to do when you grow up’ when, really, you had no idea because you were 5 years old and only just learnt how to ride a bike, let alone be prepared to plan your entire future right there and then. However, when you did finally give an answer, did you ever consider a job associated with the opposite gender- e.g. a builder if you were a girl or a nurse if you were a boy? Probably not.
Often, people who are very opposed to language reform and to changing the way things are labelled tend to refer to George Orwell's book 1984 and Newspeak. A key aspect of George Orwell's brilliant book 1984 is that the ruling party in a totalitarian regime creates a language known as Newspeak to control the thoughts and actions of the general public. Is that what’s happening when we expect people to use inclusive language? No. If anything language change and reform is being used to try and open our minds . In 1984, Newspeak eliminated words such as ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ in efforts to crush any sense of potential rebellion, whereas 21st century language reform aims to encourage freedom and equality.
For example the N-word has been taboo to say if you’re not black for many years and this is down to a multitude of reasons such as a widespread recognition of the hateful history of the word and the government's enforcement of anti-discrimination laws as well as changes in social attitudes. However, there are pockets of non-black people who still use it despite the negative connotations. For the people at the back, this shows that language reform can never be completely controlled. Sadly, it also shows we’re still struggling with knuckle-dragging racists, which is rather more depressing.
Nowadays, when people may be asked to say ‘ guard’ instead of ‘ watchman ‘ or even ‘ house manager ‘ rather than ‘ housewife ‘ to create equality and to alleviate stereotypes, some may throw their hands up in the air, huff and puff and spread fear that we are ENTERING A DYSTOPIA like 1984. But does saying‘ guard ‘ rather than ‘ watchman ‘ really restrict one’s freedom of expression? The celebrated linguist Labov identified this type of change as a conscious change from above ( meaning a child, for example, is usually told by authority figures ,like their parents or teachers, not to use that sort of language) to avoid offence. Linguistic fundamentalists may argue this is all about banning particular words and crushing individual freedom by creating narrow rules to follow. However, we have to remember that this is not true - change isn't anything to worry or panic about because when this kind of language change occurs it’s not out of spite or done to make things difficult for people but it’s done to achieve an unprejudiced and diverse society for everyone to live in.
So the next time you speak to someone who moans about so-called ‘political correctness’ and says ‘it’s gone mad’, don’t just nod along. They mock the idea of having to think a bit harder about the words they use and take it so far as to ask sarcastic questions like ‘So, am I no longer allowed to ask for a “black” coffee?’. No, that isn’t what anyone is saying. We just want to create a society that is able to adapt and use language that isn't offensive, which is, you know, just a respectful and thoughtful thing to do. Any reasonable person would not only find this understandable but also a relatively easy change to make in their own vocabulary.
There is nothing ‘too woke’ about increased education around equality and inclusivity. Linguists have tried to pacify panic merchants for many years; the issue with generalisations like ‘man’ in ‘mankind’ is that people who do not fit into this category may believe that they are not able to do the same things or meet the same standards. A simple change from ‘postman’ to ‘postal worker’ may seem irrelevant or unnecessary for many, but it benefits society and the diversity within it. Language for inclusion is not, in fact, ‘wokeness’, rather it is vital for accepting others.
So is political correctness leading us into the dark descent of controlled speech? No, it’s not. Professor David Crystal suggested that ‘language is a window into society’. Society has been prejudiced and unequal in the past - and so has the language it produced. Now, we know better, so, naturally, language is going to have to catch up with the 21st century values of equality and general kindness.If everyone were a little more aware of different people’s experiences in society then maybe the use of respectful language would just been seen as ‘equal’ rather than ‘PC’ or ‘woke’.
Sixth form Language students