I disagree with the basic premise of people-first language. That being that placing words that describe aspects of a person’s identity or condition before the person in sentence structure necessarily emphasizes that aspect of a person in a negative, demeaning, or reductive capacity. Proponents of people-first language believe that they are taking back language in a such a way that will put people first, both literally and figuratively. I disagree with this. Furthermore, I believe that it confuses the English language in such a way that actually has the potential to enact the exact effect that it seeks.
Adjective-noun structure is extremely common, baseline, modern English language usage. This point cannot be argued. That said, this leads immediately to a key point that proponents of people-first language fail to realize. For they will claim that it in cultural practice adjective-noun is used frequently by those speaking abusively about people with handicaps, mental illness, or minority groups. The problem is that this is myopic view.
Yes, adjective-noun usage can be used negatively. But there’s nothing necessarily negative about it. The use of this word order itself does not denote the negative emphasis on the adjective. It is the context, voice, and use of the speaker/writer that does this. If adjective-noun word order is used commonly by people who speak negatively about someone, if it is because adjective-noun word order is used commonly by all people speaking about all things. This includes insults. But the format itself is not in any way insulting. It is the person using the format to insult (as he or she would use it unconsciously, out of habit for almost anything).
There are many problems and dangers presented by people-first language. But here is the chief one that I want to focus on. By placing an imaginary and unnecessary emphasis on word order that does not really exist either in practical use or academic use, one is actually deflecting attention away from the true matters of prejudice and ignorance in culture. If people are really important and to be valued whatever our differences, then we need to focus on and appreciate those differences. We need to do the hard work required – actually put in the soul-searching, thinking, and contemplation necessary to really see a different person as a brother or sister in humanity. We need to put people first.
Unfortunately, people-first language puts people last. Firstly, it immediately devalues the actual voice, thoughts, and intent of speakers and writers everywhere. It does not say that it is wrong to insult or devalue people. It says something much more insidious and pernicious than that. It says that if you use a common written and spoken practice that you are by default being insulting and devaluing, regardless of the entire content and context of your words. People first language therefore demeans the art of the English language by imposing a false and presumptuous rule upon it. And it demeans the voices of all who use that language by imposing a mask of meaning upon their actual expression. In other words, people-first language
But that’s not the worst of it. Here’s the most awful rub of all. People-first language actually give prejudice and ignorance a mask to wear. Where before, context and tone could be judged to evaluate whether a statement was negative or not, now the hateful have a petty, structural defense. If they do acquiesce to altering their sentence structure to avoid conflict in the workplace, they can keep all their hate and venom within. They may even be able to trick themselves into believing that they are not prejudiced, because they talk about sensitive topics and groups in the “approved” manner. All the while never being called out, never being challenged, and keeping ignorance alive and well behind a thin veneer.
This is anathema to me. This is something I feel strongly enough against to actually fight. The true purpose of language is the illumination of the mind to oneself and others. This accomplishes the exact opposite ends. This confuses the actual use. It imagines demons where there are none. It attributes wrong to a false cause. It confuses people, even potentially to themselves. It perverts language by transforming it from a grand art of expression and illumination into a mere play of current fashion and manners. It obscures the mind instead of illuminating it.
Words don’t insult people. People insult people. Word order does not demean others. Writers and speakers demean others. They do this through the use of subtle (and not so subtle) means of context, content, and tone. But since these can be difficult to judge, why not make up an easy, if completely misguided means of judgment, right? If the truth of human experience is a difficult thing to discern, why not invent a new, easy truth that sweeps the inconvenient of processes of contemplation, introspection, and interactive discernment under the rug?
People-first language pretends that overcoming prejudice and ignorance is as easy as thing as making sure your hat matches your shoes in the current fashion. Or even worse, the people who advocate it know better, but settle for less.
We disagree on this practice. I think that you make a good point that it can mask prejudice, but those who are attempting to change their speech patterns show that, even if they are in fact prejudice, that they are attempting to be less prejudice or incendiary. I think the biggest reason I use People-first language is because it adds humanity to it.
I think also psychologically, the primacy effect is more powerful than the recency effect. Therefore, the first word is usually the more powerful word. I think also, it is more inclusive that the ubiquitous *-American.
Lastly, many people often JUST use the adjective to describe people, completely missing the humanity. And when we deny humanity, bad things happen.
The Mentally Ill versus People living with Mental Illness
Africans versus People of African Descent
Asians versus People of Asiatic Descent
Whites versus People of European Descent
The Elderly versus People of Advanced Age
Colored People versus People of Color
It is a very French practice honestly.