Inequality is one of the biggest challenges society faces today, not least because, as I pointed out in a recent post, there appears to be a direct link between inequality and the rise of populist parties across the world.

A recent study from UCL examined this issue through a fascinating lens, as they explore the role the language used by politicians, and indeed the general public, plays in the inequality across society.

The report highlights how language tends to both reflect and preserve the various values and prejudices inherent in society, and can therefore perpetuate inequalities.

Political correctness

Previous attempts to mediate language have run foul of the ‘political correctness police’, with a campaign from British firefighters to refer to staff as firefighters rather than firemen resulting in a polarized social media storm, with many branding the exercise as political correctness gone mad.

Despite the mixed reception, it seems almost inevitable that by using language that diminishes any female contributions to what is largely a male profession can help to perpetuate inequalities in the diversity of the fire service.

The authors argue that language also needs to ensure that those who are on the receiving end of inequality are included in it, and suggest that, for instance, various disability studies can be inaccessible for the disabled themselves.

They also believe that central government tends to muddy matters by using a variety of terms to describe inequality, whether that’s social mobility, equality or injustice.  Yet, surveys suggest that relatively few people even understand what many of these terms mean.

The right words

As such, the best communication is likely to be when the experiences of a particular group are presented in their own words, and that the language used by an individual community is reflected.

For instance, while the terms BAME and BME are commonly used when describing ethnic minorities, they’re rarely used by individuals as a means of self-identification.  It can result in minorities being viewed as a homogeneous group.

Instead, the authors argue that the language we use to describe inequalities have to originate from the very people who live and breath those experiences.

Language is undoubtedly crucial when driving change, whether in stimulating political action or shifting societal attitudes.  By examining the language we use to discuss and describe inequality, we’re able to explore whether it’s possible to construct a better narrative on the topic.

“Making further progress rests, as ever, on securing political and social will for change,” the authors conclude. “But it rests too on further developing the evidence base – both in terms of more accurately capturing the nuance of the problem statement, and better understanding what works when it comes to policy interventions. It is that goal which this project has pursued.”