In the social work profession, a debate has been simmering over several years: Are actions more important than words? The answer for us is: Our words matter, as do our actions. They go hand-in-hand and cannot be separated. On one hand, we tend to judge the character of people based on what they do, not what they say. But language can provide us with insight into a person’s perspective and worldview as well as where they are in their thought process.
As social workers, we must be cognizant of the language we use and how it is ever-evolving. We must be critical about the phrases we use when working with marginalized communities. We need to question why certain phrases are common within our profession and who determines their definitions.
For example, children build their internal worlds and form lifelong identities based on the language we use. Some people go to school in GT (Gifted & Talented) programs. The education system has a large role to play in dividing students into specialized, labeled groups that are treated differently. Many magnet schools divide students based on high-achieving tracks, and “grade-level” tracks. Research shows that labeling from a young age can impact self-image and impart unnecessary stress.
But we fail to see how these tracks are consistent with potential at all. Do the high-achieving kids actually have more potential than the grade level kids, or do they simply have greater opportunity and access to systems? If academic labels are harmful, what must be done to change the system to provide educational equity to all students?
When we think about the terms we use around disability, we must be aware of how our own biases fog our perception. People tend to view disability as something to be cured through medical intervention, as opposed to analyzing people through the lens of their environment. The environment can be changed by increasing accessibility, so impairment doesn’t become disabling.
Assigning labels to behavior can be dangerous. It is true that most behavior has a function, that there are reasons driving behavior. Behavior exists for self-preservation, for survival. To navigate America’s complicated healthcare systems, for example, we should expect to hear language from people that helps them get their voice heard. So, with this knowledge, how can the healthcare system be corrected to limit the prevalence of survival behaviors?
As social workers, we find ourselves within systems that are meant to provide resources and assistance to individuals and communities. Whether we work at the clinical or macro level, we constantly interact and communicate with people, which demands a thorough sense of self-awareness and the conscious use of language and labels.
Like all things, language evolves with societal progression. Language choice indicates how we communicate, and how we perceive our environment and others. Language is powerful. It can aid in liberation, but it can also assist in oppression. But without action, language has the capacity to be shallow. This is the crux of “political correctness” culture. For example, it is one thing to use respectful language around disability, shedding outdated and discriminatory words. But it is another order to advocate for accessible mass transit and call out ableism when we see it.
In the workplace, we know that women are paid less than men for every dollar earned overall. Gender discrimination at work reveals itself in many ways; from the interview process, to meetings, to promotions. Given this, what can be done about it? If a workplace uses language around EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity), but doesn’t provide child care benefits or paid maternity/paternity leave, what gives the EEO term any meaning?
As words like “diversity” and “inclusion” become trendy in the aftermath of last summer’s Black Lives Matter protests, we must ask ourselves: What is the relationship between action and language? Is it simply enough to know the politically correct or appropriate language to use? Or does organizational and systemic change become necessary with the knowledge of new language? We argue it does.
Language and action are intertwined. Assuming language is ever-evolving, our actions must be as well. If knowledge is power, then action is dynamic, subject to the best ideas of the day. We must stop using terms and phrases that are used as character assessments of the individual, and instead assess the oppressive systems and context in which people live. Language can hold us accountable and calling out archaic terms and phrases will continue to hold ourselves and our actions accountable. We must continue questioning certain phrases or structures and think about how they impact individuals and communities.
So, do actions speak louder than words? Perhaps, but words inform actions. Self-awareness is key for any social worker, and the nature of our work demands that we use our knowledge to change oppressive structures and give our clients the tools to do so as well.
Comments