How we normalise abuse with language
“Paagal hai kya?” my friend said, nudging me over the shoulder.
The words were spoken in jest but they did not particularly feel so. What if I was really mad? Would my social credibility be affected if I suffered bouts of insanity? Would my friends accept me if they knew I was seeing a psychiatrist?
Had we standardised disability to the extent that making fun of it was appropriate? Was this why those with depression chose to kill themselves instead of speaking to other people about their distress? As it turns out words indeed have a lot of power — to both normalise and stigmatise.
Language in fact has become a primary instrument in propagating this bias in our lexicon. It starts with gender, graduates to caste, goes forth to class, inculcates a bit of colour and if nothing else is available, ends at the doorstep of sexuality.
In effect, everything is susceptible to the prejudice unleashed by language in strange, subtle and often discreet ways.
Let me demonstrate this with a few examples:
India is a poor country
The SnapChat CEO recently came under fire for allegedly having said that his app wasn’t meant for "poor nations like India". Our offence was immediate and scathing. Not only did we vent our anger on social media, we also went on to downgrade the app (plus all similar sounding apps) and uninstall it from our smart phones.
It’s surprising how affronted we were on the idea of being called "poor". As if poverty was a crime, as if the poor were lesser beings, as if lack of riches was an insult. Technically, if poverty is a slight, affluence should be a compliment! Only that it isn’t so.
Inadvertently, we seem to have associated the word "poor" with humiliating undertones in common parlance. In a world where everybody is vying to be rich, poverty then is left with no option but to be referred to as a disgrace.
Straighten up
When it comes to sexuality, "Straight" is the path you must follow. If you are gay, transsexual, pansexual or asexual, you simply aren’t straight. This is because in "natural" course of things, people are supposed to be "straight".
Any deviation from this "normal" is obviously construed to be "twisted". The fact that homosexuality is a natural orientation in all biological species, is absolutely irrelevant. No wonder our children are regularly told to "behave like boys" or "act like girls" because those are the only two paths that lead down the "straight" road.
If a boy dresses up or if a girl dresses down, they are instantly told off for the fear that they may go down the "bent" lane.
After all, in a society for which blending into the majority is a positive ideal, being in any sort of minority, especially sexual, would be an object of sheer ridicule.
Are you wearing bangles?
Traditionally, when a man is unable to accomplish something, he is countered with the proverbial, "Choodiyan pehen rakhi hain kya? (Are you wearing bangles?)"
This is meant to challenge his masculinity and shame him into feminity. Apparently this is so because bangles, an adornment of women, are symptomatic of weakness. If you are wearing bangles, you can do nothing of consequence.
In one swoop, we relegate an entire gender into the throes of powerlessness, merely by the might of words. The association of strength with the absence of bangles and failings with their presence strongly reeks of deep-rooted chauvinism in our inherently patriarchal structure.
Just by using this phrase every day, we further the cause of sexism.
Fair deal, black sheep
Ever wondered why a "fair" deal is worthy but a "black sheep" is unworthy? Why adopting "fair" means is good but participating in "black" economy is not? This isn’t exactly "dark" humour, just a "fair" amount of wordplay that we indulge in each day, without realising the amount of latent racism it promotes.
Psychologically, we start connecting fairness to good and darkness to evil. Is it then a surprise that Africans are looked down upon and Europeans are looked up to? Excellence, after all, in order to be legal and approved, needs to be coated in white, doesn’t it?
And these are just a select few. As human beings, discrimination by means of language has almost become our second nature.
Our vehement belief in our exclusivity and uniqueness has caused us to categorise our brethren into compartments infested with moral ambiguities, just so that a power structure of haves and have-nots can be created, maintained and sustained.
Why else would rape lead to a "loss of honour" unless the honour of a woman resided not in her character but in her genitals. Why else would all our choicest expletives be laden with words that target mothers and sisters instead of fathers and brothers. Why else would "Are you blind?" be hurled as an invective unless being blind was an insult.