[toc]
biasfree language race and ethnicity guide
Concise Guide to APA Style: 7th Edition (OFFICIAL)
Page 98 Review
Navigating Bias-Free Language: A Critical Look at Race and Ethnicity in Writing
In academic and professional writing, the careful and precise use of language is paramount, especially when discussing sensitive topics like race and ethnicity.
The excerpt from the bias-free language guidelines provides valuable insights into fostering inclusivity and avoiding harmful stereotypes.
This commentary delves into the key points raised, emphasizing their importance and offering further context.
Choosing the Right Term: Latino, Latina, Latinx, and Beyond
One of the initial challenges discussed is the appropriate terminology for referring to people of Latin American descent.
The excerpt highlights the evolving landscape of these terms: “both Latino and Latina is now widely accepted. ‘Latinx’ can also be used as a gender-neutral or nonbinary term inclusive of all genders.
There are compelling reasons to use any of the terms ‘Latino,’ ‘Latina,’ ‘Latino/a,’ ‘Latin@,’ and/or ‘Latinx’ (see de Onis, 2017), and various groups advocate for the use of different forms.”
This emphasizes the importance of being aware of the nuances and preferences within the community.
The guidelines rightly suggest: “Use the term(s) your participants or population uses; if you are not working directly with this population but it is a focus of your research, it may be helpful to explain why you chose the term you used or to choose a more inclusive term like ‘Latinx.’” The key takeaway is that sensitivity and respect for self-identification should guide our choices.
Furthermore, specificity is encouraged: “In general, naming a nation or region of origin is preferred (e.g., Bolivian, Salvadoran, or Costa Rican is more specific than Latino, Latinx, Latin American, or Hispanic).” This highlights the diversity within the broader Latin American diaspora and avoids homogenizing distinct cultural identities.
Parallel Comparisons and Avoiding Nonparallel Designations
The excerpt then addresses the issue of nonparallel comparisons when discussing different racial groups: “Nonparallel designations (e.g., ‘African Americans and Whites,’ ‘Asian Americans and Black Americans’) should be avoided because one group is described by color, whereas the other group is not.
Instead, use ‘Blacks and Whites’ or ‘African Americans and European Americans’ for the former example and ‘Asian Americans and African Americans’ for the latter example.”
This point is crucial for maintaining consistency and avoiding implicit biases.
Using parallel language ensures that all groups are treated with equal respect and avoids unintentionally devaluing or marginalizing any particular group.
The example illustrates how seemingly minor differences in phrasing can perpetuate inequalities.
The Dangers of Essentialism
The guidelines strongly discourage essentialist language: “Language that essentializes or reifies race is strongly discouraged and is generally considered inappropriate.
For example, phrases such as ‘the Black race’ and ‘the White race’ are essentialist in nature, portray human groups monolithically, and often perpetuate stereotypes.”
Essentialism assumes that all members of a particular racial group share inherent, fixed characteristics.
This is not only inaccurate but also harmful, as it reinforces stereotypes and denies individuals their unique identities.
By avoiding phrases like “the Black race” or “the White race,” we acknowledge the diversity and complexity within each group.
Moving Beyond “Minorities”: Inclusive Language Alternatives
The excerpt also tackles the problematic use of the term “minorities”: “To refer to non-White racial and ethnic groups collectively, use terms such as ‘people of color’ or ‘under-represented groups’ rather than ‘minorities.’ The use of ‘minority’ may be viewed pejoratively because it is usually equated with being less than, oppressed, or deficient in comparison with the majority (i.e., White people).”
While “minority” has been historically used to describe non-White racial and ethnic groups, it can carry negative connotations.
The guidelines suggest using alternative terms like “people of color” or “under-represented groups,” which are generally considered more inclusive and less stigmatizing.
It’s also vital to recognize the changing demographics: “Rather, a minority group is a population subgroup with ethnic, racial, social, religious, or other characteristics different from those of the majority of the population, though the relevance of this term is changing as the demographics of the population change (APA, 2015a).”
However, the guidelines acknowledge situations where “minority” may still be necessary: “If a distinction is needed between the dominant racial group and nondominant racial groups, use a modifier (e.g., ‘ethnic,’ ‘racial’) when using the word ‘minority’ (e.g., ethnic minority, racial minority, racial-ethnic minority).” Ultimately, the best practice is to be as specific as possible: “When possible, use the specific name of the group or groups to which you are referring.”
Conclusion: Conscious Language for a More Equitable World
The excerpt provides a crucial framework for navigating the complexities of language surrounding race and ethnicity.
By adopting a conscious and thoughtful approach to our word choices, we can contribute to a more inclusive and equitable world.
Paying attention to self-identification, avoiding essentialism, and choosing inclusive language are all essential steps in this process.
These guidelines serve as a valuable resource for writers, researchers, and anyone seeking to communicate respectfully and effectively across cultural differences.
Continuously evaluating and adapting our language is an ongoing process, demanding sensitivity, awareness, and a commitment to promoting understanding.
Buy full ebook for only $18: https://www.lulu.com/shop/american-psychological-association/concise-guide-to-apa-style-7th-edition-official/ebook/product-rmzpq54.html?page=1&pageSize=4
Leave a Reply