  |
Chapter 5Chapter 5. The Practice of
Inclusive Language
In 1986, the Faculty of Anderson University
School of Theology formulated and adopted by consensus a "Covenant to Use
Inclusive Language." Subsequently, this Covenant was included in both the Faculty Handbook and the Student Handbook. The Covenant and its
statement of implementation are as follows: Covenant We covenant to use, in nongender related statements, inclusive or
non-sexist language in all seminary communications, publications, and
literature. Implementation Members of this community are invited to enter into a covenant among
themselves to strongly encourage, to lovingly monitor, and to creatively enable
each other to implement this policy at every level of our life together: our
publications, literature and communications; our classroom work; our chapel and
convocation announcements, talks, prayers; and our writing endeavors whether by
students, staff, administrators or faculty. The intention is not to be
legalistic but rather to establish a covenant for growth in sensitivity to the
inappropriateness of gender language when human inclusiveness is intended.
This covenant is intended to guide current usage and not to judge spoken
or written materials from the past. Inclusiveness One could, of course, criticize this
statement for its narrow focus. Most certainly the issue of inclusiveness is
much broader than the use or non-use of "gender language." School of
Theology faculty today would speak of the language of racism, ageism, and
classism as morally and theologically objectionable as well. A new
"covenant" statement would undoubtedly include such broadened
concerns. It is our observation, however, that
students and faculty alike appear to have the most difficulty with gender specific language. Many students,
both men and women, desire to be sensitive and inclusive in their use of
language, but find long-standing conventional linguistic practices very
difficult to overcome. This linguistic sexism is so much a part of modern
English that it is constantly sneaking up on our blind side, in spite of our
good intentions. Further, the force of conventional language
use often blinds us to the fact that English is a wonderfully creative
language. We need not be bound by time-honored conventional linguistic
practices that treat non-white, non-male, non-youthful people as inferior,
inconsequential—or worse, invisible. By learning to use language with creative intentionality, we can both
overcome the linguistic conventions of exclusiveness and create new conventions
which include all people. Pseudo-Generics One of the common arguments is that lexical
items such as man, mankind, and he are generic words. That is, general terms which include people of both
sexes. As Francine W. Frank and Paula A. Treichler argue, the use of these
false linguistic generics "is not free from social and political
influences" (1989:4). These "generic definitions," they go on to
say, are "socially constructed and sometimes socially manipulated." Casey Miller and Kate Swift, in The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing (Second
Edition), point out that the definitive grammars of modern English were written
in the 16th and 17th centuries. They conclude: The
male authors of these earliest English grammars wrote for male readers in an
age when few women were literate. The masculine-gender pronouns they used in
grammatical examples and generalizations did
not reflect a belief that masculine pronouns could refer to both sexes.
They reflected the reality of male cultural dominance and the male-centered
world view that resulted. Males were perceived as the standard representatives
of the human species, females as something else (1988:44, italics mine). Miller and Swift note that in the 18th
century a grammatical "rule" mandated that masculine pronouns were to
be considered gender-inclusive. This "rule" was widely taught in the
19th century. The "conventional" notion of the "generic" third
person singular masculine pronoun was thus "invented and prescribed by the
grammarians them-selves." In 1850, in England, an Act of Parliament
"gave official sanction to the recently invented concept of the 'generic' he" (1988:44-45). Sociolinguist R.A. Hudson argues that
"people use language in order to locate themselves in multi-dimensional
social space" (1980:195). Those who insist that words such as man, mankind, he, his, and himself are ideologically-neutral and
inclusive assume, apparently, that language is a neutral vehicle. To the
contrary, as numerous sociolinguistic studies indicate, it comes to us dripping
with human and social assumptions. This is, to be sure, a highly controversial
subject, even in linguistics. Nonetheless, we here in Anderson University
School of Theology assume generally that sensitivity to and concern for all
people, including non-males and non-whites, is morally and theologically
appropriate. We are therefore eager to listen to those who may feel excluded by
our language conventions and seek to change those conventions in linguistically
appropriate ways. Suggested Guidelines The question remains, how do we go about
eliminating non-inclusive language from our speaking and writing? We believe
that can be done by drawing artistically upon the great range of creativity
built into modern English. But we also recognize that this calls for sustained
and determined effort, both as individuals and
as a community. We also assume that most of us desire to avoid language
that discriminates and offends, but find such linguistic self-consciousness
difficult to achieve and maintain. The following guidelines are drawn largely
from the work of the Commission on the Status of Women in the Profession of the
Modern Language Association and contained in the work of Frank and Treichler.
Examples and suggestions are drawn also from the work of Miller and Swift. Alternatives to the
"Generic" He 1. Recast the sentence in the plural, using "they, their, them."
"A student will be given
access only to his own file, no matter who he is" thus becomes
"Students will be given access only to their own files, no matter who they
are." NOTE: A second way to
recast the sentence in the plural is to use “they, their, them”
even when the resulting sentence seems to mix singular with plural. “The average person will do what he can to
help if he recognizes than an emergency exists” thus becomes “The average
person will do what they can to help if they recognize that an emergency
exists.” Prestigious usage authorities
accept they as a singular,
gender-indefinite referent. You will
still annoy pop grammarians like John Simon, who went out of his way to produce
the following absurd sentence: “Everybody is watching Winds of War right now, isn’t he?” 2. Substitute the first person pronoun (I or we) or the second person
(you) for the pseudogeneric "he." Instead of the indirect, "
A student will be given access only to his own file, no matter who he is"
try the more direct "you."
Thus, "You will be given access only to your own file, no matter
who you are." 3. Occasionally use the combined forms "he and (or) she" or
"she and (or) he." Thus, "A student must work hard if he or
she wants to succeed." It is best, however, to avoid frequent use of this
option. NOTE: He/she
or his/hers should never be
considered an option. He (she) or his (hers) is no improvement. These are
both awkward and unnecessary—since better alternatives are available. 4. Use the gender-neutral "one." In some contexts,
"one" is quite appropriate. Over-use, however, can make one sound
affected and pedantic. Instead of, "A student must work hard if he wants
to succeed," we can say, "As a student, one must work hard in order
to succeed." 5. Alternate masculine and feminine pronouns in some examples. The
following sentence is typical: "We sometimes criticize others, saying,
"he is too aggressive," or " he is too easily intimidated."
This can easily be changed to read: "We sometimes criticize others,
saying, "he is too aggressive," or "she is too easily
intimidated." This usage also
serves to suggest in a subtle way that women are genuinely "others." 6. Rewrite the sentence. Thus, "The typical American drinks his
coffee black" becomes "The typical American drinks black
coffee." Or, "A man gets ahead only by limiting his
expenditures" can be rewritten as, "A person gets ahead only by
limiting expenditures." Or, Frank and Treichler's example: "The assistant
professor will be ahead of the game if he learns about the tenure process
before he goes through with it."
Suggested rewritings are: "The assistant professor who learns about
the tenure process in advance will be ahead of the game;" or,
"Whoever seeks tenure should learn about the process before going through
with it;" or, "An assistant professor should learn about the tenure
process before going through with it" (1989:166f). 7. Occasionally, the passive voice may be used. The sentence, "A
man shows his love for the church by giving his tithe faithfully,"
becomes, "Love for the church is shown by faithful tithing." Frank
and Treichler caution us here that recasting sentences in the passive voice may
result in awkward and wordy sentences (1989:172). In the example we have used,
however, this is not the case. If linguistic care is exercised, the passive
voice can be helpful in avoiding the use of pseudo-generics. 8. In some contexts, repeating a noun enables us to avoid the false
generic "he." "God is love. This means that he love every man,"
can be changed to, "God is love. This means that God loves every
person." NOTE: In using "God language," we need to bear
in mind that God is neither male nor female. To insist on masculine pronouns as
a theological necessity is to impose gender on God—and thus we have created God
in a masculine image. It is equally mistaken, however, to assume that we have
solved the problem by the occasional use of feminine pronouns when speaking of
God. To assign sex or gender to God is to carve an idol. For a helpful
discussion of "God language," see especially Sawicki 1979, Hardesty
1987, Wren 1989, Kimel 1992. Using True Generics Frank and Treichler suggest that one way to
help achieve non-sexist language use is to use gender-neutral terms. A gender-neutral term is a term unmarked for
gender. Thus, police officer for policeman; letter carrier for mailman; server for waitress, and so on. The word, chairman,
becomes chairperson, presiding officer,
moderator, or just plain chair;
salesman becomes sales agent or sales associate; foreman becomes supervisor; and cameraman becomes camera
operator. Other true generic substitutions for
pseudo-generic terms include person or
human for man, humankind or humanity for
mankind, ancestors for forefathers, and personnel for manpower.
Nor do we need to man equipment; we
can operate it. Miller and Swift provide a several-page
"Thesaurus" in their Handbook
of Nonsexist Writing. We recommend this for student use, since it is
impossible here to reproduce numerous examples, or to cover all of the ground
that needs covering. Parallel Treatment The use of language which trivializes women—and ethnic groups and
the elderly—is common in our society. This is often done through the use of non-parallel language. For example, we
often hear young single women referred to as girls, but young single men are not described as boys. Miller and Swift's example
illustrates this: "Three Stanford University students—two girls and a
man—were abducted from a research station in Africa." The implication, according to Miller and
Swift, is that the "girls" are less mature or less significant than
the "man." The newscaster could easily have remedied these sexist
implications by using parallel
language. Thus, "two girls and one boy" (1988:101). A classical example of non-parallel
language is found in a traditional Christian wedding service: "I now
pronounce you man and wife. The couple obviously are man and woman. What they
are being recognized as is husband
and wife. Conclusion What we are talking about here is sensitivity. Our linguistic practices
can suggest to others that they are invisible or unimportant—or inferior in
some way. We white males need to become aware of the fact that we are only a
part of humanity and modify our language to evidence that awareness. It is not a question of changing our
language so that our attitudes will change, or changing our attitudes so that
our language will change. We must do both. Language, attitudes, and values are
so interwoven that language and attitudinal changes mutually generate and
reinforce each other. Unless, of course, we are merely playing political games. |