All of this inclusive language business is, in general,
quite good. We’re not talking about
mankind, we’re talking about humankind.
Male and female, men and women are all human and all trod through the
human experience. Often the human
experience is slightly different for males and females, men and women, and so
acknowledging that, too, is good. It’s
good because if we are going to live in peace together, which, I think, we all
more or less hope to do, then we have to see
each other. We can’t do that if our
language excludes half the population and makes them feel less than or unseen.
What I see a lot of now, however, are attempts at
swinging the pendulum the other way.
Ideological movements often work this way: try to swing the pendulum the
other way so that, at some point in the near future, the pendulum may have
found a still equilibrium. What may seem
like pushing too far may only be a temporary blip in time to make people aware
of the importance of the movement so that real peace can be found. I hope, though, that by pointing out these
pushes too far and suggesting a different course that I will encourage writers
and orators to live in the still equilibrium now rather than waiting for a
future time.
The first push too far is the exclusive use of female
pronouns: the “she” and “her.” A lot of
female and male writers do this now. By
“a lot” I don’t mean majority but enough to notice the practice. Let me remind you how I came up with the
phrase “push too far”: it relates to swinging the pendulum in the reverse
direction. I don’t mean that writers who
use only female pronouns are irresponsible.
In fact, I’m very appreciative that some writers have chosen to do this. As a male, after reading the first essay (I
don’t recall which essay, only that it was an essay) in which only female
pronouns are used, I felt left out. Then
I read a book that used only female pronouns and I felt greatly annoyed. So I came to appreciate how important
inclusive language is through this practice.
I came to appreciate how through the ages women must have felt unseen
and unheard through male-exclusive language.
The fact that women had to accept that, according to the rules of
language, “man” can refer to any human and “you guys” can mean everyone, and
even today many women accept such usage, especially in the case of “you guys,”
only makes the unseen and unheard-ness worse because it means women didn’t and
sometimes still don’t know that they are lesser when male-exclusive language is
used.
Yet while I appreciate female-exclusive language for what
it’s done in opening my eyes, and while I would encourage primary schools to
use female-exclusive language to teach kids the importance of inclusive
language in writing and speech, it cannot become a permanent practice. I feel bad saying so because, on some level,
I understand than many men need a taste of their own medicine to really
understand. On another level, it seems
just for us to make up for all the years that women were left out and
unseen. But truthfully the practice of
using female-exclusive language other than as a teaching mechanism is as unjust
as male-exclusive language because it leaves people in the shadows. That is never just. If enough people get on the female-exclusive
language bandwagon then it may become a cultural practice and then we really
will have swung the pendulum the other way, and then eventually men will become
upset and swing it the other way, and on and on we’ll go without ever acquiring
the elusive Lady Justice. Again, I
appreciate the female-exclusive language practice and understand all the good
reasons and intentions a writer or orator might use the practice, but it can’t
be a permanent tool for communication.
So if you happen to be reading this, I hope you’ll come to understand
that inclusive language is not some liberal gobblygook and is actually a means
of achieving peace in our world by seeing one another and that you’ll
consistently use inclusive language so that others don’t feel the need to
resort to one form of exclusive language or another and thereby oppress others.
Once we start using inclusive language consistently
always we might think that we’re in the clear.
Unfortunately, some people are more sensitive. I admit that I’d put myself in that
category. Another practice that I’ve
seen a lot of lately is the use of “her or his.” What’s wrong with that, you might ask. It’s the same thing as “his or her” (or “her
and his” vs. “his and her” obviously), you might say. Yes, you’re right, but over time if a writer
uses “her or his” all the time, then one might ask why the female is always
ahead of the male. Are women that much
better than men? It’s a sad state of
affairs when people are sensitive to this type of thing, but alas, the world is
full of sad states of affairs. Again, I
appreciate those writers who use “her or his” constantly and on purpose because
otherwise I wouldn’t have noticed that my use of “his or her” over and over
again may make some question why I think the male should always precede the
female.
So appreciative am I of the “her or his” practice that I
can suggest to writers and orators a best practice for inclusive language. And by “writer” and “orator” I don’t mean
professionals only, I mean anyone who writes or speaks in any capacity, which
is all of us. First, use inclusive
language. Make sure that everyone feels
seen. Then, determine which sex and
gender you most associate with. Start
with that one. If, like me, you most
associate with the male sex, then start with male pronouns. The first time you use inclusive language,
you’ll start with a male pronoun and end with a female pronoun. Then, the next time you use inclusive
language, reverse the pronouns. Continue
to reverse until you’re done writing or speaking. This way, not only will we see all people but we will also show
that we respect equally all
people. Even if we don’t see and respect
equally all people, at least we won’t unnecessarily and unjustly offend anyone
until such time that we can correct our thoughts and attitudes to mirror our
inclusive and edifying language. As
Orwell convincingly argued, language does affect thought, so if our language is
respectful, inclusive, edifying and dignifying, then we will create a more
peaceful and just world.
(By the way, as far as God is concerned, I think people
should feel comfortable using whatever language for God suits them. Though God is an objective reality, unchanging
and True, the relationship between human and God is necessarily
subjective. We each experience God as an
individual. If our experiences
contradict, well, that’s a problem, but if I say Father and you say Mother,
there is no contradiction because the nature of God’s love can encompass the
Father and Mother realities simultaneously.
I cannot tell you how you should experience and relate to God and vice
versa. With that said, while I try hard
to only say “God” or “Creator” or some other sex and gender-neutral
descriptors, I do sometime use “Father” or “Him” when it seems grammatically
silly to say “God” a bunch of times in a row.
To force everyone to use inclusive language for God denies all of us the
intimate relationship with our Creator that God intends, because that intimate
relationship is inherently personal and unique to you and God. So go ahead, be intimate with God, be open
and honest, and then if your relationship calls for using Mother and Her, then
great; if it calls for using Father and Him, then great. You are an individual that deserves to be
seen and is seen by God, so don’t let
any mere human dictate what your relationship with God will be.)
No comments:
Post a Comment