To what extent should we question the way in which we use language?  To what extent does the language we use colour the responses and the judgements of others?  The right to pass judgement is not something that I wish to question here (although it remains a valid discussion), rather what is of interest is the judgements which are inherent in the language itself, judgements which have become so firmly ingrained in our culture that it is difficult even to recognise them and which by extension therefore, perpetuate the inequalities of our culture through their continued use.

Through the creation of ‘default positions’ in language we find ourselves forcing judgements onto situations that are not necessarily intended.  As a prime example of this there is the artificial position of superiority which is accorded to man through the misuse of language.  (I say misuse rather than use because we choose to employ the words we do and thus should be able to modify our language to avoid creating bias unnecessarily.)

Amongst the forms of hidden bias in language are the bias found in the grammar of languages themselves and through the assuming of a ‘default’ position.

Bias through grammar is especially evident in languages where words have gender such as French and Spanish.  In these languages, any group of objects or people which comprises at least one object or person of masculine gender is automatically considered to be male in totality.  This has for result the establishment of a rule which proclaims that the presence of a single masculine object takes precedence over all feminine objects.  This is not a conclusion which is drawn actively by the commentator (and thus is not a choice), but is rather a judgement imposed by the rules of language.  Using such a language obliges the person (if only in speech) to raise the male perspective to the fore.  Such perceptions continue through the existence of certain professions only having a masculine name, and there being no feminine equivalent – such a Mâitre in French for a Lawyer or Professeur for a Teacher.

The use of a ‘default’ position through language is also responsible for the perpetuation of unintended bias: the sport of football is played all over the world, and has historically been played principally by men.  In the last century however a number of countries have seen a dramatic increase in the practice of the sport by women, and yet through the use of language an evident bias is maintained.  The BBC website for sport has a Football section, under which it is possible to find a section labelled “Women’s Football”; however there is no section labelled “Men’s Football”.  The word ‘football’ thusly remains synonymous with the game played by men, any reference to the sport played by women is accompanied by the term ‘Women’.  For as long as we continue to refer only to Women’s Football and Football there can be no equality in the perception of the two sides of the sport – as only one side requires a moderator in its very name.  Equality requires equal prominence, and that cannot happen if the language we use places one side in a preferential position to the others.

In both of these examples we find that a ‘default’ position is established and is uniquely linked with a masculine identity.  The use of a default position can be one of convenience, whereby the default option is the lowest common denominator and thus it is easiest to change for the few cases where this does not apply.  However, in permitting the presence of a default position to remain, we reinforce the understanding that the default position is the normal position, and we thus imply that any other position is not in fact normal.

Over and above the building blocks of the language itself we also find judgements inherent in the expressions that we use on a day-to-day basis; judgements which if left unchecked further contribute to the lack of equality and imbalance of our society.  Expressions such as “…throw like a girl” when used convey an automatic determination which is negative towards women.  It of course works both ways – in French you can be a ‘maman tigre’, but never a ‘papa tigre’ and in English it is possible to ‘lord it over someone’ – but never ‘lady over someone’.  Whichever direction the bias takes, there is bias, and with each use we reinforce values (perhaps) involuntarily.

Expressions such as this are possibly rooted in the fact that the society which gave birth to the expression was itself biased; thus we perpetuate the attitudes of the old society even whilst we seek to change it.  It follows then that if we wish to change our society, then we also need to change the as we speak

The danger from my perspective is not that we make judgements – although this undoubtedly can be responsible for a tremendous amount of chagrin, but rather that through inattention we perpetuate existing prejudices without thinking…The richness of our language can be a beautiful thing, but it is also capable of bringing a great deal of pain – it behoves us to make sure that the only judgements it carries are those that we intend.