The Nature Of Inclusive Language

For too long, speakers and writers have ignored how their language betrays a negative judgment against large segments of society, whether women, minorities, or the disabled. The following article defines inclusive language and suggests what issues the church must address in pursuing a just use of language in worship.

The term inclusive language refers to words intentionally selected to redress the bias inherent in centuries-long use of language employed by the dominant culture. It refers to words, therefore, which remove women from the invisibility and inferiority imposed upon them by such terms as mankind, brotherhood of man, the weaker sex, etc. It refers to the conscious substitutions of positive phrases in referring to people of color instead of vilifying expressions like blackmail, blackball, blackguard, etc. And it refers to deliberately chosen words, which refer to those who suffer patently observable impairments, calling these people, mute, for instance, instead of dumb, or differently abled instead of disabled or handicapped. Inclusive language emphasizes clarity and honesty. It proceeds from an overriding value judgment that one race or gender is not superior to another or that one is not less human for being sense-impaired. Inclusive language identifies the positive and equally important contributions of many different peoples and experiences. Inclusive language pertains to verbal and nonverbal images that describe both humankind and God. Human or "?Horizontal?" Language. Discriminatory descriptions of women provide the most common illustrations of the need for inclusive language. Women are categorized as inferior to men. Such sexist or exclusive language evolved from the socio-cultural bias against women, where the nouns man, men, and brothers and the pronoun he refer to both women and men. This androcentric language clearly conveys that male is the norm and female is a subspecies of male. Inclusive language corrects this misconception through both gender-specific language and emancipatory language, i.e., words and images that acknowledge the distinctive contribution women make to the fullness of the human experience. In addition to concerns about gender, inclusive language is sensitive to all examples of implicit bias in language: race superiority (white is purer than black); physical ability (rectitude as a word describing right and sinister the left; sheep on the right, goats on the left); and a host of others. History. A cursory glance at significant moments in linguistic history makes clear that the choice of male pronouns and nouns used generically was based on the patriarchal view of the ordering of society. As early as 1560, there is evidence that grammar was determined by the "?natural?" order, i.e., man precedes woman. By 1850, an Act of Parliament in England eliminated the use of he or she when referring to human beings, substituting he alone. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, questions have been raised about androcentric words used generically for all humankind. The most serious challenges have occurred since 1960 in conjunction with the civil rights and women's movements. Linguistic scholars suggest that "?true generics?" implies equal application. This mutuality does not exist with words such as man, brothers, and men because no one understands woman to imply man, sisters to include brothers, nor women, men. Instead, the use of such language renders women invisible and implies inferiority. Inclusive language offers one of many necessary correctives for this situation. Theological or "?Vertical?" Language. The patriarchal context that influenced "?horizontal?" language impacted the development of theological language as well. The primacy of male language for God also was fully acceptable. Recent linguistic and theological thinking raises serious questions about the "?normative?" character of male imagery for God. It offers fresh interpretations of biblical texts and theological positions long used to undergird traditional arguments for the sole use of male metaphors for God, predominantly Father, though also King, Lord, Master, and Prince. Male language limits the revelation of God and promotes idolatry (the worship of any image of God as though it were God). Theologians throughout history understand their task as one of relating the nature of God to contemporary experience. Christological doctrines and Trinitarian formulas have emerged from such study and debate. In the ongoing explanation of these aspects of human/divine relationship questions appear. One such critique concerns the use of exclusively male metaphors for God. These metaphors inherently communicate that God is like a man (especially like a father), and that men are like God. Such implications undermine the power of women to be images of God, as well as to mediate God's grace. Implications for Sacramental Practice. Invitations of God embodied in the process of preparation for and performance of the sacraments involve an offer of freedom, of access to inexhaustible divine mystery, and of a relationship of unimaginable love. This articulation requires utmost sensitivity and honesty. Language restrictions, which suggest some human participants in this sacramental encounter are more significant than others or that God's image is more concretely known through male metaphors rather than female ones, limit the sacramental encounter. Examples span a spectrum from hymns, prayers, gestures, and models of leadership that do not express an integrated human community to "?essential?" theological formulas that use only male metaphors such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Though some suggest that the Holy Spirit has female referents, pronouns do not ordinarily confirm any such tradition.) Concerns about inclusive language provide a serious critique of sacramental practice. They challenge the church to examine the theology and ecclesiology embodied in the celebration of sacramental liturgies, so that the significance of these moments reflects more honestly the fullness of the divine/human relationship.