On the need of having, or not , an “Inclusive” language
We weren’t the first to ask the question: Vera Gheno, we’ve borrowed your words (and, in case you’re wondering, her answer is no: language should not be a museum). But let’s take it step by step: what does museum even mean here? We refer to the increasingly common question of whether inclusive language (language that acknowledges gender differences and ensures equal treatment and recognition of all) has become necessary. And, as a result, whether language must evolve alongside the time and culture in which it’s spoken.
To begin answering, let’s start with this: it is definitely worth asking the question. Regardless of the whataboutery brigade — you know, the ones who say “oh come on, there are far more important problems.” Sure, the world is buried under a mountain of problems. But still, we took a moment to reflect on inclusive language: we care about language, we who don’t take it for granted. And we’re not the only ones. The World Economic Forum, for instance, publishes an annual report identifying the best DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) practices across companies in all sectors. All in the name of “shaping an inclusive global economy.” So yes, DEI matters — not only in terms of values, but also in terms of economics: amid economic volatility, organisations continue investing in DEI, fostering resilience and innovation for sustainable economic growth.
But what is inclusive language, exactly?
The United Nations defines it as a set of practices and strategies aimed at using non-discriminatory language. That means avoiding stereotypical expressions (no need, for example, to say “he dresses like a girl”). It means acknowledging gender differences through correct use of pronouns and nouns (let’s not be lazy or stingy with words: sometimes we can say “female and male students are going to the beach” rather than defaulting to the generic masculine). And when possible, opting for neutral language terms. Italian, of course, poses its own challenges because its nouns come by default in different gender types. We’ve got common gender nouns, where the article changes the gender (il giornalista / la giornalista). Other nouns have just one form, regardless of gender (la tigre maschio / la tigre femmina). And finally gender nouns, where the ending changes accordingly (maestro / maestra).
And here a world opens up, especially in the debate around feminine forms of professional titles. If I’m a legal professional, am I avvocato or avvocata?
If I’m Lydia Tár, am I a maestro or a maestra d’orchestra? (Not a random example: maestra is commonly associated with primary school teachers — and might be read as diminishing the role. Lydia, we know you’d never have accepted that!)
And while we’re opening up linguistic wormholes, we can’t not mention the even hotter debated use of the asterisk or the schwa as a plural ending for mixed-gender or non-binary groups. Once limited to activist spaces and social media, they’ve now landed in the publishing world as well.
Disclaimer: We’re not here to say where the truth lies — but we’ll allow ourselves one good old pros and cons list.
On the one hand, the asterisk and the schwa reflect a shade of reality that would remain otherwise hidden. On the other, here they attract loud critiques: they disfigure the language, make it less readable, and throw syntax and rhythm out the window. With legal language, Accademia della Crusca didn’t hold back. They encouraged the widespread use of feminine job titles. They advised against “heterodox symbols,” arguing that spoken language should remain the standard, and written language should reflect it as closely as possible. So, then? Is inclusive language necessary or not? Should we use the asterisk or not? Am I avvocata or avvocato?
Plenty of questions and only a few answers. But they’re good ones. And small acts of awareness.
Resisting the temptation to say “ language has always been like this” (language is not a museum), we recommend to always considering context: where we speak, who we’re speaking to, and the emotional or informative message we want to convey. For example: if it hadn’t been legal language, would Accademia della Crusca have been so strict? Here we go, another question :) A good habit we don’t want to lose.
If you’ve got questions, too, write to us at supernova@remidastudio.com
