Our Use of Language

Most people who attend any of my classes, or spend much time around me, will find out that I am very particular about the words I use. This is not to say that I pore over a dictionary or thesaurus every time I speak or write, although I do use both frequently. I do, however, make it a point to try and choose the word which best fits what it is that I'm trying to say. I have learned some lessons about word choice and language which I would like to share.

The first lesson is that of exclusive language. It has become fairly common for folks to use the word 'guy' when referring to any person, regardless of gender. The same goes for groups of individuals, even if all of the group members are female. The social context of the word 'guy', or its plural, has become gender-neutral. The issue with this is that not everyone in our society agrees with this context. Now most people don't go out of their way to correct someone who uses the word 'guys' when speaking to a mixed-gender group, though it is an incorrect reference. This is just one example of this type of language. Another, perhaps less forgivable example, would be the business owner who opens a meeting with all of his district managers, both male and female, with the greeting "Good morning, gentlemen". In doing this, the business owner has neglected the presence of his female employees. This is the same principle as using the word 'guy'. Both are incorrect and both exclude entire categories of people. Try this: for one month, replace the word 'guy' with a more inclusive word, or perhaps rethink what it is that you're trying to say, and cut out the introductory "Hey guys". Think about how this changes (or doesn't) the way you feel about those to whom you are speaking...and maybe how they respond to you.

The second lesson I'd like to share is that the words we use help to define how we think about people, things, or concepts. A simple example of this would be: "So I was waiting outside by the corner and this chick walked up...". 'Chick' is another commonly used word that refers to women and has become socially acceptable in many circles. The issue is that the word 'chick' denotes a lack of respect for the recipient. It may not be in the same league as some other words that I have heard men use to describe women, (and yes, I am including myself in that group, although you won't hear me use them any more) but does still qualify to be part of the club. The word 'chick' is just one way that we assume a flippant attitude toward women. Once our attitude has shifted from one which views a woman as a person worthy of respect, it allows for a transition that often results in a woman being viewed as a compilation of parts best suited for decoration or sexual gratification.

A third lesson I recently came upon is the concept of preventive facework. This may sound complicated, but I assure you, it is not. Simply put, this is how one tries to minimize the effect of the statement which follows the phrase. Here's a well known example: "With all due respect...". The person receiving this line, we all know, is about to be disrespected. The person using this line is practicing preventive facework, that is, he or she is about to say something potentially damaging to that person's 'reputation' and uses the phrase "with all due respect" to soften the blow. This also works when the person making the statement realizes the potential harm he or she may cause his or her own 'reputation', and uses a similar tactic. A great example of this lately was GOP Rep. Joe Walsh who made the following statement during an interview regarding President Obama's 2008 election: "Why was he elected? Again, it comes back to who he was. He was black, he was historic. And there’s nothing racist about this. It is what it is. If he had been a dynamic, white, state senator elected to Congress he wouldn’t have gotten in the game this fast. This is what made him different. That, combined with the fact that your profession” — another friendly tap of the bumper sticker —”not you, but your profession, was just absolutely compliant. They made up their minds early that they were in love with him. They were in love with him because they thought he was a good liberal guy and they were in love with him because he pushed that magical button: a black man who was articulate, liberal, the whole white guilt, all of that." Rep. Walsh may also need to do some remedial facework after that comment.

One last lesson I'd like to share is yet another that we are often exposed to, perhaps without realizing it. The lesson I am referring to now is the passive voice. More to the point, I am referring to the use of the passive voice as it relates to blaming the victim. The example of this I would like to share is the phrase folks may hear in connection with the victim of sexual assault...specifically, the phrase "she got raped". First, I would like to point out that if one looks up the definition of the word 'got', being the past tense of the word 'get', one will find something to the effect of, "To receive or come to have possession, use, or enjoyment of". I believe that very few people (and probably none who will read this blog) agree that definition belongs anywhere near a statement about sexual assault. Additionally, it's just bad grammar. Unfortunately, it is a remark that is often heard. For conversations sake, let's take a less volatile variation. We'll use, "She was raped". Almost the same, still passive voice, still serves the purpose of this example, and is widely used in reporting about sexual assault. "She was raped" is an example of a statement about a crime which focuses on the victim rather than the subject. There are several reasons why this is a problem in and of itself. Suffice to say, focusing attention on the victim of a crime does little to convey an admonishment of the crime. Rather, it allows for the scrutiny of the victim, which in the case of sexual assault, often deters people from reporting. A better example of this line might be "He raped her". By changing from a passive to active voice, two things happen: 1) the focus shifts back to the perpetrator and 2) the perception of harm toward the victim is kept closer to actual, rather than minimized.

This is probably a post which I will re-visit and modify or expound on as necessary. For now, I hope that these examples provide folks with some things to reflect on when it comes to how we communicate. As I have been told, words are a powerful thing. I believe that statement to not only be true, but also understated.

Hidden Biases and Victim Blaming

I found the following picture while on Sociological Images. I would like to thank Lisa Wade for her article which provides an excellent example of two significant issues: racism and victim blaming. Before I get to that however, let me give some background our visual reference.

The picture you see on the left is actually part of a series of billboards that were being put up in the Highland Park neighborhood in Los Angeles, California. The caption, when translated to English, reads "I give you love, you gave me asthma". A fairly powerful statement in my opinion.

The billboards are said to be part of an ad campaign to get parents in the target area to stop smoking around their children. The agency responsible for the advertisement, First5California, was created from the .50 cent tax levied against each pack of cigarettes sold in California.

There are a some aspects of this story which are often overlooked and to which I would like to draw our attention:

• The area in California where these ads were placed is approximately 70% Latino/Hispanic. Though it may seem to be an unnecessary statement, the other 30%, is not. By marketing the ad toward the Latino population, not only is the agency missing approximately one-third of the area residents, but they are also demonstrating discriminatory behavior which may be referencing hidden biases.
• Given, that the race or ethnicity of a person has no direct bearing on that person's ability to speak either English or Spanish, the creators of this ad thought it necessary to print this in Spanish so as to direct their ad toward the target audience. The U.S. Census Bureau found, that in this particular area of the U.S., over 70% of the population speaks English either "well" or "very well", while 60% of the population speaks Spanish. By printing the ad in Spanish the agency excluded the non-Spanish speaking population because the assumption can be, and often is, made that they aren't talking to me.
• Another aspect to this is that while second hand smoke can lead to childhood asthma, so do other factors. Many of the poorer families in this area are Latina women raising children as single parents. The median annual income for a single woman in this area is over $10,000 less than the median annual wage for the total local population. There have been direct linkages made between poor housing and poor health. Environmental factors have the potential to adversely affect the health of those living in poor housing every bit as much, if not more, than smoking.

In my opinion, this is an excellent example of how people who 'just want to help' fail to address root issues and focus on the victims instead. Might it be a better use of the agencies time and resources to give a helping hand rather than pass judgment and lather on guilt?