Time to Change the Language Paradigm A Tool for Promoting Social Progress

I read a fascinating editorial piece entitled "Time to Change the Language Paradigm A Tool for Promoting Social Progress." This article asserted that people's use of the word "minority" is very problematic and is perpetuating the power gap between various communities in society. The author points out something that most know, but probably rarely think about: the word minority, itself, is based off of the concept of being "less than." The author argues that simply due to our overuse of the word "minority" to describe a huge amount of people in various communities, we, as a collective society, are keeping white men in power while disempowering all other communities. This article struck a chord with me because it related to the societal implications of word choice and word frequency in relation to identity, which is something that I am personally very interested in.

The article contained a notable contradiction. While on the one hand, the author advocated for specificity as the ideal form of language and communication (for example, breaking down communities and simply referring to the one you are talking about- African Americans, versus "minorities), later in the article, the author argues "language must be inclusive. The language of inclusion is the language of a true democracy." By both arguing for language being both specific and inclusive, the author reveals a contradiction in her logic. This in turn reveals the complexity that is contained within the discussion of the proper, most socially conscious forms of language. On the one hand, it seems necessary to use specific words that accurately represent the community one is discussing in order to prevent over-generalizing and/or robbing individuals or specific communities of their own uniqueness. On the other hand, becoming too specific and insular with language choices can be damaging, and the argument for inclusive language (for example, using “people of color” to speak to certain relevant issues) is compelling because it can speak to a common cause or struggle, indicating more collaboration and coalition building rather than singling out a single community.

Despite the apparent contradiction in her argument, the author’s commentary on the power of language is very compelling and raised some very important and interesting ideas. I think we should all be very cognizant of the words that we use, as their implications can be much larger than we might expect. Moreover, I believe that we should all think about our own stance on the most appropriate language choices (aside from what is socially acceptable, politically correct, etc.,- but rather, what we deem to be the most appropriate) to use. For me, I believe this will come on a case-by-case basis, and that context is extremely important. For example, I feel as though it would be appropriate to use the term “people of color” when discussing racism as a pervasive society reality. However, I think it is more appropriate to use more specific terms (such as black people, African Americans, Latinos, Cubans, etc) when discussing specific communities’ histories or instances of being the target of racism. Language is too complicated to make a general statement like “language must always be inclusive’ or “language is best when it is specific.” Rather, one must consider the most appropriate word or words to use in a given situation based on context, history, and desired intent. Moreover, our conscious decisions about what language to use can themselves change society. The article advocates for social change through language change. Because of the prominent role that language plays in all of our lives (and in shaping our lives), being conscious and purposeful about what language we do and do not use may have significant effects on how society functions and evolves.

Source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Time-to-Change-the-Languag-by-Skywalker-Payne-100507-522.html