By: Ylva Kopineck
Can politicians restrict and dictate the way we speak? Shockingly, yes. Language, it seems, is inherently political. The words we use are not just a reflection of our identity; they also shape our perception of the world. Language has the power to influence our thoughts, and those who control how we speak hold a significant amount of power. Moreover, language is never neutral; it plays an active role in political discourse.
Growing up, I was often told that it was easy for me to learn English because ultimately English and German are from the same language family. However, while this might be the case there is one fundamental difference between German and English. How would one translate the German articles “der,” “die,” and “das” into English? Simply as “the.” This is because while English is a gender-neutral language, German is not. In German, whether you use “Arzt” or “Ärztin” is influenced by the gender of the person, while in English you would just use doctor no matter what. The male form is often regarded as the default version and norm, especially the male plural form is often used to refer to men and women. So, when one uses the male plural version of doctor “Ärzte”, we also refer to female doctors, even though they are not specifically addressed. Language is therefore not neutral.
Some would argue that these linguistic details do not matter, however, language shapes our perception of the world. There have been several studies that show that young children when hearing “Ärzte” only picture male doctors and not female ones. This has tremendous effects on their worldview and on gender roles within society, as these language biases reinforce traditional gender roles and therefore contribute to the under-representation of women in certain professions. Such effects affect society, as they shape career aspirations, reinforce stereotypes, and lead to systemic inequality.
In order to combat this issue, there has been in recent years the attempt to make the German language more inclusive. Terms like “Lehrer” (male teacher) and “Lehrerin” (female teacher) are being replaced with gender-neutral forms such as “Lehrer*innen” or “Lehrer:innen,” to include everyone and all identities. Predictably, this has sparked outrage. Many Germans are against the use of “gendergerechte Sprache” [gender-sensitive language] and condemn it as too complex and confusing. Younger generations, and those with more leftist ideologies, in general are more ready to use the gender-sensitive language, while older and more conservative Germans oppose it. These divisions have influenced political discourse, with left-leaning parties embracing inclusive language and right-leaning parties vehemently rejecting it. The debate around the employment of a gender-sensitive language has once again shown that language is and will always be political.
In December 2023, the Minister-President of Bavaria Markus Söder announced that the use of a gender-sensitive language should be banned at Bavarian schools. And in March 2024, the official ban was implemented, with teachers no longer allowed to use gender-sensistive language. The main justification being that “language must be clear and understandable”.This move has sparked both support and controversy among the public and signalled that gender-sensitive language has become a political issue. Given this, it is unsurprising that an individual’s political views significantly influence whether they support or oppose the use of gender-sensitive language, which is also reflected in the differing attitudes of political parties across Germany. While those parties further to the left have tried to incorporate the gender-sensitive language, parties further to the right have called out the “Gender-Wahn” [Gender mania]. Not surprisingly the far-right party “Alternative für Deutschland” (AfD) has been at the forefront of condemning the attempt to create a language that tries to include everyone. In March 2024, the AfD started an initiative to ban the use of gender-sensitive language in letters from authorities and public offices as well as in schools and universities in Brandenburg, following the example set by Bavaria. Söder’s step to officially ban the use of gender-sensitive language in Bavarian schools shows that politicians can have the power to restrict the way we speak. Furthermore, he is clearly signalling that the CSU is ready to move further to the right on the political spectrum.
While people cannot be forced to use the gender-sensitive language, people can equally not be banned from employing it. Certain things, such as the use of racist and discriminatory language, should be prohibited as such language marginalises individuals and groups and creates divisions within society. However, gender-sensitive language does not harm anyone; rather, it seeks to be inclusive, by making non-binary people visible, and acknowledges the diversity of identities in society. Moreover, gender-sensitive language challenges societal norms. By adopting inclusive terms, we can encourage a more balanced representation of genders, which may lead to a gradual shift in perceptions and attitudes over time.
The actions in Bavaria are deeply concerning. They reflect the growing polarisation of politics in Germany and underscore the importance of language in shaping political discourse. As language is inherently tied to our perceptions, those who control how we speak wield immense power. The debate over gender-sensitive language is a reminder that language is not just a tool for communication—it is a political instrument.
Comments