Previously, I have published to short synopses—in blog post style—of chapters for the non-fiction book I’m working on, Neurodiversity at Work: A Manager’s Guide. First, I wrote a post introducing the neurodiverse workforce, and then I addressed the need to cope with the challenges of inclusion, and the possibility to capitalize on a diverse workforce. Here I will explore the rhetoric of business in contrast with the language of inclusion.
The Rhetoric of Business
One of the hallmark linguistic requirements of the contemporary business environment is the use of politically correct language. The emphasis on an externally set linguistic standard betrays a vital fact that most seem quite unaware of, namely that respect is not dictated from the outside in.
Personally, I find that if you genuinely respect people, then respectful language will naturally flow through your use. If, on the other hand, you are inclined to devalue people, then an externally enforced linguistic standard only seeks to cover up that disrespect. While the purpose of politically correct language is to express tolerance, the reality is that an externally enforced standard does not breed tolerance, merely compliance.
By following the strictures of politically correct speech and further by attempting to enforce a distant, façade of respect through public and employee relations programs, business cultures convince themselves they practice tolerance. And yet the problems of internalized prejudice continue. In gender, race, and disability relations, equality is not attained despite our legislation and the enforcement of politically correct language. The language used in businesses becomes empty rhetoric that is not played out in the culture of the business or in the everyday choices where prejudice holds its greatest power.
The Language of Inclusion
The language we choose to use can influence the way we think about the world and the way we perceive each other. Choice is a significant factor, however. Underlying the choices we make is the respects we hold. I often refer to my children as children with autism, autistic children, autistic or even, though I try not to, Silly Willy. According to political correctness, this is wrong; yet my regard for my children does not change. Recently, Dave Hingsburger of Rolling Around in My Head wrote a post about the language we use. There are some words and phrases that are truly offensive. However, most terms can be used with respect. Disability is not an ugly word, nor is it an ugly state of being. It is only ugly when we have no respect for those who are disabled.
The language of inclusion is less about the words we choose and more about what we mean when they use them. If you think an autistic person is worthless, it does not matter that you use people-first language. You can call autistics “people with autism” all you like, but if “autism” means “inferior” to you, then everything else you say and do is going to communicate your prejudice loudly and clearly no matter how politically correct you are.
The Transition
The language of inclusion is not about political correctness or the façade of tolerance. It’s about genuine respect. You can’t fake it. But you can shape it by making new choices for new reasons. It can be shaped within a culture by people who use words with respect. In order to make this transition, you need to incorporate respect into the culture of your business. It’s not just about the words you use, but the ideas and beliefs you express. This respect must come from a force within that organization, and it must be disseminated throughout the organization. Respect diverse workers. Respect diverse partners, suppliers, and customers. Respect the diverse world we live in. Inclusive language will naturally follow.
Yes. Great post. The challenge is not so much changing the words as it is changing the context and culture in which the language is used. And that’s the tough part.
A good leader in the workplace can set standards for the kind of behavior that’s expected and tolerated, and of course model respectful behavior him/herself. But it’s hard to combat a pervasive lack of respect that’s reinforced in every other institution in society. To get at that, we need a change in the societal power dynamics that create and perpetuate the culture of disrespect to begin with. It will take a lot of organizing, self-advocacy, and education to make progress toward shifting power. But creating a respectful culture in the workplace is a good place to start, and I understand that that’s the context of your book.
I agree that the greater culture requires change and that’s my main purpose for the blogging and advocacy work I do, but within the contexts of a business environment you can actually change the business culture as a separate entity, which can, but might not, influence the external culture.
For example, many corporate cultures have a higher tolerance for unethical behavior than does the culture at large. People who lie or cheat at work, as part of their job, do not necessarily carry over those behaviors to the rest of their lives. Similarly, business cultures that emphasize customer service can create very positive, service-oriented cultures; again, that cultural shift may only exist within the workers in the work environment.
I will go into more detail about how to accomplish this within the book itself (a chapter, after all, can be much longer and more thorough than a blog post). The idea of shaping corporate culture is not particularly new, but to do so in regards to opening a company up to diversity, paricularly neurodiversity, is still more untried than not.