Rewriting Norms: The Controversy of Gender-Inclusive Language

 ... this brings to mind an ant-hill into which a stick is placed and the damage to which will be immediately repaired; in other words the tendency towards a system, towards order will never flag.”

Introduction

Efforts to feminize job titles and other gendered nouns in French have sparked significant debate. Proponents of gender-inclusive language argue that it promotes equality and increases visibility for women. For instance, terms like "professeure" (female professor) and "auteure" (female author) are gaining traction. However, critics contend that such changes complicate the language and can lead to awkward or unnatural expressions. The debate over "écrivaine" versus "écrivain" (female versus neutral/male writer) is emblematic of this contention, reflecting a broader global conversation about the role of language in shaping and reflecting societal attitudes toward gender. In this article, we will explore this ongoing debate in greater depth.

Challenges Inherent in Attempting to Modify Language Through Decrees

An illustrative example of the difficulty in changing language from above is France's mandate to mark grammatical gender in professional designations, as explained in the following quote:

“An example of how difficult it is to change something in a language from above (by decree) can be found currently in France in the official requirement to mark grammatical gender in professional designations according to sex: for instance écreivaine instead of écrivain (writer), the latter of which was (and still is) used for both sexes. That ‘politically correct’ decision can lead to very ordinary names sounding quite ridiculous. This is what happens when ‘reason’ is imposed on language” (Normand, “System, Arbitrariness”).

Traditionally, "écrivain" was used for writers of any gender, but now "écrivaine" is mandated for female writers to promote inclusivity. This top-down imposition has led to criticism, with some viewing it as unnecessary or even ridiculous. This reflects the challenge of imposing "reason" on language, which operates as a complex, self-regulating system.

Ferdinand de Saussure’s principle of the arbitrary nature of the linguistic sign underscores the difficulty of implementing such changes. According to Saussure, the connection between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary, shaped by historical and cultural usage within the language system. Language evolves organically through its use by speakers, not through top-down imposition. Therefore, attempts by external forces, such as governmental bodies, to alter language by decree often face resistance or lead to unintended consequences.

In the case of France’s gender-specific professional titles, the result is sometimes perceived as awkward or artificial by native speakers. This perception arises because the new forms may not align with established linguistic patterns and the intuitive sense of the language community. Such interventions can disrupt the natural evolution of language, inherently tied to its social context and history. As Saussure posits, language is a social institution governed by arbitrary signs that gain meaning through their relationship with other signs within the system. Imposing rational reforms on this complex system often leads to resistance or even ridicule. Despite this, efforts are being made around the world to make language more inclusive.

Similar Discussions Occurring in Other Languages

In English, the push for gender-neutral language has become significant. Traditional job titles and terms often default to the male form, prompting efforts to change this. Examples include "chairperson" instead of "chairman," "firefighter" instead of "fireman," and "police officer" instead of "policeman." Additionally, the use of singular "they" as a pronoun for non-binary individuals has gained acceptance, as seen in sentences like "Everyone should bring their own lunch," using "their" as a gender-neutral pronoun to avoid "his" or "her."

Spanish, a gendered language with masculine and feminine forms for nouns and adjectives, has also seen debates over gender-inclusive language. Traditional forms are being challenged by alternatives like "Latinx" or "Latine" instead of "Latino/Latina" to refer to people of Latin American descent without specifying gender. Additionally, some use the @ symbol or x (e.g., "amig@s," "amigxs") to include both masculine and feminine forms in written communication. There is also a growing, though controversial, trend to use -e endings to create gender-neutral terms, such as "amigue" instead of "amigo/amiga" (friend).

The efforts in French, English, and Spanish reflect a broader societal push towards inclusivity and gender equality. Each language faces unique challenges due to its grammatical structure and cultural context. French and Spanish, with their gendered nouns and adjectives, encounter more resistance and complexity in implementing these changes compared to English, which has fewer gendered elements. The evolution towards gender-inclusive language is dynamic and sometimes contentious, illustrating the tension between traditional language use and the desire for language to evolve in ways that reflect and promote social change. This debate highlights the power of language as both a reflection of societal values and a tool for shaping them.

Tension between Natural Evolution and Conscious Intervention in Linguistics

The tension between natural linguistic evolution and conscious intervention by policymakers is a complex and multifaceted issue. Saussure’s analogy of language as an anthill, where intervention results in quick restoration by the ants, aptly captures the resilient and self-regulating nature of language:

Saussure, Ferdinand de. “It is wonderful to see how, in whatever way diachronical events may disrupt, the linguistic instinct manages to make the best of it... this brings to mind an ant-hill into which a stick is placed and the damage to which will be immediately repaired; in other words the tendency towards a system, towards order will never flag.” In The Cambridge Companion to Saussure, edited by Carol Sanders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Translation of CLG/E 2: 49.

However, increasing awareness and deliberate efforts to modify language for social and political reasons add another layer to this dynamic. Let's now consider some arguments for and against language intervention.

Pros and Cons of Language Intervention

Arguments in Favor

Social Equality and Visibility: Proponents argue that language shapes perception and societal norms. By consciously modifying language to be more inclusive, such as using gender-neutral terms, societies can promote equality and reduce discrimination. The push for terms like "firefighter" instead of "fireman" in English or "écrivaine" in French aims to make female professionals more visible and challenge historical biases.

Cultural and Societal Evolution: Language intervention reflects broader cultural shifts towards inclusivity and respect for all identities. As societies evolve, so must their languages. Consciously updating language to reflect contemporary values is seen as a necessary step in societal progress.

Policy and Legal Frameworks: Legal mandates and policies that require inclusive language can drive significant change in public discourse and institutional practices. This can help standardize inclusive language use in education, media, and the workplace, fostering a more equitable environment.

Arguments Against

Natural Evolution and Organic Change: Language has historically evolved organically, with changes emerging from the way people naturally use it. Imposing changes from above can feel artificial and may not be readily adopted by the general population. For instance, mandatory gender-specific job titles in French can sound awkward and may not catch on in everyday speech.

Resistance and Backlash: Top-down efforts to change language can face resistance from those who view such changes as unnecessary or cumbersome. This resistance can slow down or even reverse the intended changes. Moreover, forced changes may be seen as infringing on linguistic freedom and cultural heritage.

Complexity and Confusion: Introducing new forms and rules can complicate language learning and usage. For languages with rigid grammatical structures like French and Spanish, creating gender-neutral or inclusive forms can lead to confusion and inconsistency.

Predicting Future Outcomes of Language Intervention

Language is inherently adaptive and responsive to its speakers' needs. While conscious interventions may face initial resistance, they often have lasting impacts, especially when they align with broader societal shifts. Here are some possible future outcomes:

Gradual Integration: Over time, consciously introduced changes may integrate into everyday usage, especially if they resonate with societal values and receive widespread support. For instance, the use of singular "they" in English has become increasingly accepted as people recognize the need for non-binary pronouns.

Hybrid Evolution: Language may evolve through a combination of natural changes and conscious interventions. As new forms gain traction, they may influence organic language development, creating a hybrid evolution shaped by both top-down and bottom-up processes.

Localized Variability: Different regions and communities may adopt changes at varying rates. In multilingual societies, some groups may embrace inclusive language more readily than others, leading to localized variability in language use.

Resilience of Core Structures: Core grammatical structures and deeply embedded linguistic norms may prove resilient to change. While surface-level changes (like job titles) may be adopted, fundamental aspects of language may continue to follow their own evolutionary paths, reflecting Saussure’s idea of the language system restoring itself after interventions.

Conclusion

The debate over language intervention, particularly in the context of gender inclusivity, underscores a broader dialogue about how language evolves in response to societal values. On one hand, proponents argue that modifying language to include gender-neutral or gender-specific terms can foster social equality and visibility, reflecting and supporting cultural shifts toward inclusivity. Legal and policy frameworks that mandate such changes can drive significant progress and standardize inclusive language use in various domains, from education to the workplace.

On the other hand, critics contend that such top-down interventions can disrupt the natural evolution of language, often resulting in forms that may seem awkward or artificial. Language, as Saussure’s analogy of the ant-hill suggests, tends to restore itself and resist imposed changes. The complexity and resistance inherent in these efforts highlight the challenges of aligning language reforms with the organic patterns of linguistic evolution and the potential backlash against perceived infringements on linguistic freedom.

Ultimately, the future of language intervention may involve a hybrid approach where deliberate changes and natural evolution coexist. Over time, changes that align with societal values may gradually become integrated into everyday usage, while core linguistic structures may remain resilient. As this dynamic unfolds, it will continue to reflect the ongoing tension between the desire for progressive reform and the inherent stability of language as a social institution.

Related Posts:

Unilateral Changes to Language: Saussure's Perspective

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/10/blog-post_08.html

Unpacking the Power Dynamics: Saussure and Hegel on Language and Authority

https://derridaforlinguists.blogspot.com/2023/10/blog-post_812.html

Bibliography

The Cambridge Companion to Saussure. Edited by Carol Sanders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Normand, Claudine. “System, Arbitrariness.” In The Cambridge Companion to Saussure, edited by Carol Sanders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

The Encyclopedia of World Problems & Human Potential

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Encyclopedia Britannica | Britannica

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy