The need for sensitivity over language is well
understood by social workers but do professionals find it difficult
to engage with service users as a result?
People forget," proclaims
comedian Frankie Boyle,
"that political correctness used to be known as spastic gaytalk."
The joke always gets a big laugh - not because many people use the
word "spastic" in everyday language any more than they would
"nigger" or "queer", but because a lot of people want to stick a
metaphorical two fingers up to a culture of political correctness
that they perceive as having gone too far. Social workers have a
reputation for being the most PC people around (although the term
is so reviled that most disown the expression). So how can
professionals use their language respectfully without becoming a
Northampton, has some common sense advice. "We should be reflective
and sensitive without becoming absolutely obsessive and closing
down conversation," he says. "If in my classroom someone gets
slapped down for using the word 'coloured' instead of the term
'black', that's not going to be helpful. We've all put our foot in
it in the sense that someone's objected to something we've said.
That's why there's also the word 'sorry'."
But that's easier in theory than in practice. Being labelled a
racist, sexist or bigot of any hue is employment and social poison,
so people's fear that they could cause actual offence is multiplied
by the worry of being seen to cause offence by others.
Taken together with the confusion over legal obligations
covering equality, it's no surprise that the "political correctness
gone mad" viewpoint has become so prevalent, especially when it has
been exploited by newspaper editors and the wider media. But while
it is easy - and fun - to take the mickey out of press coverage and
the mythical PC brigade banning black coffee and whiteboards, it's
worth remembering that most of us know at least one person who
tries to change people's language or behaviour when it's not
necessary.
Individual choice
Busybodies aside, how mindful do professionals need to be of the
language they use? Disability equality trainer Laurence Clark says
it is the individual choice of users that should be followed. "Talk
with someone and figure out what terms they are comfortable with,"
he says. "That's fine on a one-to-one basis, but if you're talking
about a policy or a leaflet that's delivered in the community,
obviously then you have to be more mindful. There's a difference
between people's definition of words, which is why I focus on where
words come from. To my mind if you've got an idea of where words
come from or what they might imply, then they can at least make an
informed judgement."
But Chiatulah Ameke, a diversity trainer, thinks that focusing
on words is a problem in itself, and that it is an unnecessary
debate. "I think you've got to create an environment where people
can make mistakes [in what they say]," he says. "When I started as
a social worker in 1991 that was possible that's been shut down.
And this distracts from underlying debates about recruitment and
retention. They're just not being addressed."
This debate isn't just academic the effects can change how
people do their jobs.
Towards Race Equality, published by the Inspectorate of
Probation in 2000, documented that many white probation officers
felt uncomfortable with black prisoners, and would choose to write
"bland" reports on them for fear of asking difficult questions.
Training may be a cause of the focus on semantics. "Social
workers are an interesting case," says Pilkington. At one time in
social work training there was a clear set of notions of racism and
it was close to what critics of PC talk about [drawing up a list of
banned words], so maybe social workers are particularly sensitised
to that - it was closing down legitimate training. That has
changed, so maybe the current generation isn't so concerned about
it."
But effective training is currently absent, says Linda Bellos,
former leader of Lambeth Council and now a director at
Diversity
Solutions: "Very few people have received training. They don't
know what the Race Relations Act says or what they are obliged to
do, or even what the underlying message is, so they make it up as
they go along, and that's where the danger lies.
"It would be nice if the
Equality
and Human Rights Commission met its duties," she says. "There's
been a duty [on employers] since 2002 to ensure all staff receive
training on race equality. I'm not asking for anything more than
the law says, but a lot of people don't know what the law
says."
The gap between effective training and people running on moral
intuition can be striking. Tiffany Bridgewater, a social work
student at Wolverhampton University, says that while her training
was effective, the culture of being overly mindful of language in
the workplace is affecting how she works. "It does prevent me from
having in-depth conversations with service users," she says. "I am
doing my placement with young disadvantaged women and because we
are about the same age I feel they may think I am putting them down
by using politically correct words. I don't feel like I can talk to
them in a friendly way it has to be professional, which I think
hinders the amount of quality information I am able to access from
them."
Daft edicts
It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the culture of
being overly mindful is all too common. If a manager issues a daft
edict about using a particular term, most people are not going to
bother arguing the toss over it. "One teacher in particular is very
persistent on us sticking up for ourselves, particularly with
managers," says Bridgewater. "But in reality the best thing to do
is keep your head down and get on with your work."
Bellos's argument that proper training rather than moral
intuition should define people's language, is not just compelling -
it's legally binding. But in the absence of that, professionals
have little choice but to take responsibility for their own
language, says Ameke. "People need to realise that when someone
makes a crackpot decision in a council, that it is not national
law. My advice is if you're not sure about something, then ask and
discuss, but do stand your ground. Get support from your colleagues
and look at the context."
Your views on PC language
Opinions from contributors to our CareSpace discussion forum. A
debate on the TV documentary Mum, Heroin and Me triggered the
following exchange:
● Lizzer: Just a little thing, but I find it offensive when
people are referred to as "clean" when they are drug-free, as this
implies that when they are using they are dirty. Would it be better
if the phrase "drug free" was used?
● Popeye: I'm currently on placement within a drugs treatment
agency. All professionals use "clean" and when I was talking to a
service user I asked if he minded the term. He was perplexed as to
why I might think he did. I then started to discuss with more
service users one lad told me that I was a stuck-up student, and
did I mean that he was no longer a 'smackhead'.
● Wolvouni: I am in my second year at university and I'm very
worried that when I qualify I will say the wrong things (that the
words I use won't be politically correct.)
● Aitch: wolvouni - don't worry about getting the PC language
wrong - you will almost certainly offend someone at some point, as
popeye's example shows. The important thing is that you retain
respect for the people you are working with and it will show in
your overall language. Be open to discussion about what are or are
not acceptable terms and remember that PC/acceptable language is
always evolving.
● Stuart Sorensen: Politicising language in this way changes so
rapidly that people fall foul of it without knowing they've done
it. For example, the use of the word "schizophrenic" is innocent
enough for most people but I could rail against it for hours during
training sessions if I chose to. The only real result, though,
would be to frighten my students into silence because they
genuinely do not know how the rest of their language will be
perceived.
How have your say
at Community Care
This article is published in the 4 December 2008
edition of Community Care magazine under the headline
D'oh! Don't say that