How language can be a form of protest
Let’s assume that our language was magical and, if used correctly, we could turn everything upside down simply by naming things differently than we are used to. Then we would only have to consistently use gender-neutral language when referring to our bosses1 and, whoosh, equality in the workplace would be achieved. But it’s not that simple. Language is not a magic wand, and just because I use a gender-neutral term for activists, that doesn’t mean we’ll have communism tomorrow. But language does have a little power: It can ensure that little children don’t only imagine men when they hear about space adventures, or that Uncle Thomas freaks out at the next family reunion – and both only because we use gender-neutral language. So language definitely has power. Those who talk about astronauts of all genders want to make it clear that it’s not only men who travel into space. Valentina Tereshkova2 likes that.
‘Doesn’t anyone notice that what you say is all plastic?’
Our language is a reflection of the society it comes from. At the same time, language shapes our perception of the world. And not just when it comes to gender. Other aspects of power are also reflected in our language. What’s more, language sometimes even obscures power relations, making them less vulnerable to attack. That’s why it’s necessary for us to analyse and question our language.
Would you like a few examples? Let’s take the terms ‘employer’ and ‘employee’3: One gives employment and the other takes employment – ‘give’ is a rather positive word, whereas we associate ‘take’ with a burden. These words give the impression that employees should be grateful to their employers for providing them with employment and thus money for food and housing. But isn’t it actually the other way around? Employees give their labour by spending, for example, eight hours of their lives in the office every day. Meanwhile, ‘employers’ take this labour to generate profits. The terms therefore convey a false impression of who is actually providing what to whom. Incidentally, this also shows that equality in management positions would not overcome the fundamental injustices of our society: because whether I am exploited by a woman, a man or a person in between makes no difference to me – I am being exploited. More and more terms are becoming established that obscure the realities of our working world. The word ‘employees,’ for example, conveys a false sense of equality. In contrast to ‘member of staff’ – here, the term still conveys the hierarchy that exists between the boss and the people who are forced to sell their labour to the former and must do as they are told.
Language is the establishment’s protective armour
Not convinced yet? We have more examples. There are widely used words that serve to damage the opposition in advance and protect the establishment. These ‘bad words’ are reserved for enemies – they condemn them, but at the same time they also create them. The current debates about climate activists are a good example: All it takes is something to be smeared media-effectively, and terms such as ‘eco-terrorists’ or ‘climate criminals’ start appearing in the newspapers and at Karl-Heinz’s regulars‘ table. These terms become even more absurd when one considers that the actual destroyers of the environment are at the same time trivialised as ‘climate sinners’. Thus, the people who protest against the destructive actions of politicians and corporations are linguistically branded, and not those who are destroying the planet in the long term through ruthless profit maximisation. This twisted language also conveys a twisted assumption in our society: If it is completely exaggerated to use radical means to demand consistent policies against global warming, then perhaps current policies are not so problematic after all, right? 97% of climate research refutes this.4
Other distortions occur in reporting on riots: Again and again, we have to read about ‘violence’ allegedly perpetrated by activists, when what is actually meant is damage to property. (You can read more about violence here, by the way.) It becomes bitter when such terms paint a completely false picture of reality: for example, when we read in the protest coverage about 68 injured police officers, only to find out after intensive research5 in the small print that 67 of them ran into their own sprayed tear gas.
‘No matter what I do in my life, I will always fight for language and vocabulary.’
Language can therefore misrepresent reality and, by withholding important information or using incorrect terminology, obscure power structures and delegitimise protest. Accordingly, language can also become an expression of protest. By changing our language, we can reveal connections, spark discussions and expose areas of vulnerability for fundamental struggles. One last example: if we consistently use the term ‘wage labour’ when talking about our paid jobs, we make it clear that our lives consist of various forms of work (household, voluntary work, family, activism, etc.) and that only one specific form of it is rewarded with money. However, this alone does not fundamentally change the circumstances; further struggles are needed.
Language is only the first step. Regardless of the fact that language alone cannot change our system, we should not make people’s lives unnecessarily miserable in capitalism by deliberately misgendering them or making them invisible – basic human decency. So, dear comrades, sharpen your tongues and get to work.
- Note that this text was originally published in German, where most substantives are gendered – e.g. there are different terms for male (‘Chefs’) and female (‘Chefinnen’) bosses. As a standard, the male plural form is used, allegedly including everybody – while studies show that in reality (and not really surprisingly), listeners think about men when they hear others use male forms. A way to circumvent this is to use gender-neutral language (e.g. refer to Chef:innen). ↩︎
- She was the first woman in space in 1963, and we have no idea what she thinks about gender-neutral language. ↩︎
- In German, employers are called ‚Arbeitgeber‘ (literally translates to ‚work givers‘), while employees are called ‚Arbeitnehmer‘ (literally translates to ‚work takers‘). ↩︎
- At least 97 % of research comes to the same conclusion: Climate change is a massive man-made problem – and now we need massive man-made solutions. ↩︎
- This can be read in articles by all those journalists who do not unquestioningly accept police press releases. ↩︎
