As the new year begins, many of the social issues we’ve encountered in 2014 continue to be significant. The novelty of 2015 brings with it increased discussions of cyber security, police brutality and, unsurprisingly, feminism. The issue of gender equality has powerful historical importance and carries great relevance in both the present and the future. Among the methods used in the pursuit of gender equality is a critique of the gendered nature of language, and while this is certainly important to explore, it is not the problem.
The gendered nature of language is not a powerful determinant of our thinking patterns, but a reflection of it. Our creation of linguistic distinctions between humans of various genders arises from our innate need to categorize and create order in the midst of chaos, and while many believe the biased foundations of language should be changed, is this really the best option?
Rather than deconstructing language, we should be constructing a new understanding of it. I understand and agree that terminology used to alienate and insult certain demographics should be avoided, such as derogatory terms directed towards persons of a certain race, sexual orientation or religion. But there’s a difference between using language with a biased history and creating a biased narrative of your own through language.
The proponents of language deconstruction posit that words like “freshman,” “postman,” and phrases like “you guys” place women in a position of inferiority. It’s no secret that the English language is anchored in male superiority, because it was created in a time when such a belief was commonplace. But is it really that much better to introduce gender-neutral phrases like “freshpeople” and “you persons?” Will such changes really make a difference in framing the way we think?
The findings of a 2011 study conducted by psychologist Jennifer Prewitt-Freilino suggest that countries with gendered languages have less gender equality than those with natural gender languages. But natural gender languages still refer to the gender of the subject of a sentence, and this correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation. If I were to utter a derogatory term towards someone, I wouldn’t suddenly experience hatred simply because I used that word; those negative feelings and thoughts must be already present to carry weight.
It’s essential to remember that though some language is naturally biased, it’s the practitioners of language who perpetuate that bias. Our world is one of differences. When we overlook the distinctions among humanity — whether they be of race, faith or gender — we lose appreciation for this innate diversity. It’s possible to employ phrases like “freshman” and “chairman” in a way that makes use of the pre-existing structure of our language without excluding or alienating others, provided we say them respectfully and ensure our actions reflect tolerance and understanding.
Language undeniably influences thought, but it does not determine it. Rather than neutralizing language out of the fear that its nature may affect our actions, we should be more conscious of our actions themselves. It’s these active choices that speak loudest on our behalf. What are yours saying?