Frankly,
I think getting too PC (politically correct) can interfere with clear, concise
English. But, we writers need to be aware of PC trends so we can make conscious
choices and avoid faux pas whenever possible. And there are lots of PC-isms we out there we need to know.
But here's an example
of what I consider just too, too PC: An academic at one of the universities that uses my husband's
reference book, What Foreigners Need to
Know About America From A to Z (http://amzn.to/ForeignersAmericaUS)
objected to the word "Foreigners" in the title. My husband was aware
of that difficulty when he chose that title. Some consider it pejorative. The
thing is, there is not really a perfect substitute in the English language.
"Aliens" calls up an image quite different (and for some even more
negative) than "Foreigners." These academics who used to call their
students from other countries "foreign students" now call them
"international students," but that term wasn't quite right for this
book. Some people this book is written for may be emigrants. Second generation
citizens. Tourists. People who aren't Americans who conduct business with
Americans both in the US and in their own countries. And on and on. Though not a perfect term, "foreigners" was
the most inclusive word he could find.
I
think that often attitudes about words tell more about the person who objects
to them. When did it get to be a bad thing to be a "foreigner?" In
America, even Native Americans were once from somewhere else. Or, more
importantly, when are we going to get over the idea that being a foreigner is a bad thing.
Now
the LA Times reports that the
respected AP (Associated Press) has decided to discourage its reporters and
editors from using the word "illegal immigrant." Some find the term
offensive. The Times reports,
"They prefer 'undocumented' arguing that 'illegal' is dehumanizing and
lumps border crossers with serious criminals."
So
the venerable AP stylebook warns against the term, though they, too, couldn't
find a suitable substitute for all cases. Instead they suggest a kind of
"working around it" approach—which may be an adequate alternative in
the body of a written piece but may be tough when coming up with a title or
headline.
There
are all kinds of phrases and words that we should be leery of. We
know—instinctively or because we writers need to keep up on such things—most of
them. But sometimes the style suggestions are just plain mealy mouthed. Meaning
that they are diluting our language without offering anything that works as
well.
Decisions.
Decisions. Just remember. "Undocumented" isn't going to work. Some
people have documents, just not the right ones.
But
the part of all this—the part that I love—is the idea a senior manager at
Associated Press put forth: "It's lazy to label people. It's better to
describe them." I have to agree with that. I was labeled all my life and
hate putting labels on people. It's a little like putting them in a box,
locking it, and throwing away the key.
And,
just so you know, LA Times and The New York Times will soon be weighing
in on the "illegal" and "undocumented" issue. Can't wait to
see what they come up with.
Note:
In the 1970s, the LA Times style book
preferred "illegal alien." Times do change…gradually. Thank goodness,
mostly for the better. I'm going to accumulate style choices, possibly for a
new book. If you have ideas for me, please let me know at HoJoNews@aol.com
Carolyn Howard-Johnson edits, consults. and speaks on issues of publishing. Find her The Frugal Editor: Put Your Best Book Forward to Avoid Humiliation and Ensure Success (How To Do It Frugally series of book for writers)
. Learn more about her other authors' aids at www.howtodoitfrugally.com/writers_books.htm , where writers will find lists and other helps including Great Little Last-Minute Editing Tips 
on the Resources for Writers page. She blogs on all things publishing (not just editing!) at her Sharing with Writers blog. She tweets writers' resources at www.twitter.com/frugalbookpromo .
8 comments:
Oh, for the love of God.
If you are an "illegal alien" (there's probably a statutory definition of such) then you are an "illegal alien." Political correctness be damned - you're in this country (or have remained in it) illegally.
Even "the N word" simply stems from the Spanish word for the color "black." It's all in the tone, all in the tone. And to those who think you cannot distinguish tone from the written word, I say, "Either you're reading the wrong authors, or you're not reading carefully enough."
Sometimes labeling and describing are interchangeable. Foreign is - well, foreign. What the heck else would you call it? When we're in Rome, we're foreigners. Big whoop. Illegal is "against the law" - it's just one word, not three.
What should be politically incorrect is deliberately debasing, taunting, dismissing, and generally being hateful towards other human beings. Even accidentally offending them just says something about the speaker or writer - not about those he refers to. I'm totally opposed to scrubbing our language clean of anything that might upset someone else. I am completely in favor of choosing one's words more carefully and thoughtfully.
I'm half dago wop, half kraut, and full American. I love being all that, but if I had to pick one that I'm a bit ashamed of, it's the American. For that's labeling me as part of a society of sheepish followers who are scared of their own shadows, afraid to call a spade a spade, and who let anyone and everyone - illegal or not, immigrant or not, foreigner or native - walk all over them.
Totally agree Holly and I like Carolyn's comment that the reaction tells us much more about the person, than about ourselves. Sure there are some people who will use any term in a derogatory way - but to assume or jump to the conclusion that any term a person doesn't like for some reason is being used in a derogatory way is ridiculous and a sad statement about the people who choose to be offended. Our country has a lot of diversity - from one region to another, we can enjoy and learn from that diversity or we can choose to find offense where there is none. I prefer to learn from the differences -
I love that this got the ire up for so many of my writing friends. I liked Nikki's phrase " sad statement about the people who choose to be offended" and I think Holly alluded to that, too. Obviously I have a lot of writing fellows who think writers (and everyone else) would be better served by weighing their words carefully--and not letting the nit-pickers dictate to them! (-:
Thank you for this thoughtful discussion on being PC. I always think of that term as something a politician worries about, not writers. But I guess there are situations for writers when they do have to consider their audience and intentions.
Exactly, J.Q.! And it seems as if politicians could use some good writers/editors to help guide them. I've sure seen some atrocious faux pas. I do have a sort of guideline. If the accepted PC word or phrase is actually better for a writer's needs, then go for it. Otherwise, carefully consider it to see if some meaning is lost or to see if
if the PC-ism isn't as accurate as you'd like it to be.
It won't be long till Orwell's vision of 1984 is a reality.
Holly, a book could be written on the parts of 1984 that already have come true! You up for it?
Post a Comment