Ethics and Language
By: Kate Drewry, MSW, LCSW
As social workers, we understand the importance of communication; language influences how people think and behave. In recognition of the power of words, our Code of Ethics says this about social workers’ responsibilities to clients:
Social workers should not use derogatory language in their written, verbal, or electronic communications to or about clients. Social workers should use accurate and respectful language in all communications to and about clients. (p.16)
Further, social justice is a core social work value. A foundational way we can work towards justice is to use language—spoken and written—that is respectful, sensitive, inclusive, empowering, and equity-centered.
As part of the Centers for Disease Control’s health equity initiative, the CDC developed guidelines for inclusive, equity-centered language. The American Medical Association, in their Guide to Language, Narrative, and Concepts, built on the CDC guidance.
Key principles of the CDC’s equity-centered approach to language include:
- Avoid the use of adjectives such as vulnerable, marginalized, and high-risk. These are vague, deficit-based (as opposed to asset-based) terms that imply the condition is inherent to the group rather than the social conditions. Instead, use terms that explain why groups may be affected more than others, such as disinvested; historically and intentionally excluded; or people who are not equitably served by [system/program].
- Use humanizing, person-first language to describe people who have a condition or circumstance. The CDC suggests saying people experiencing homelessness rather than homeless people.
- Limit use of the term minorities, which means “less than” and is considered pejorative. Instead, be specific in defining groups with terms like people from racial and ethnic groups and/or use terms like historically marginalized.
- Avoid unintentional blaming. Consider whether your language potentially reinforces negative assumptions, stereotypes, or stigma. Do not assume that people are refusing a service or choosing not to participate in a program – there may be structural issues at play. Adherence, for example, is preferred over compliance, which describes the passive behavior of following instructions. While non-compliance places blame on the client, non-adherence there may be alternate explanations, such as mistrust of a system or resource constraints.
To be sure, language evolves and requires context. Terms that are preferred here and now may be less so in the future or different circumstances. Our ideal ethical obligation is to recognize that through language, we have the opportunity to shift the dominant narrative by making structural inequalities visible.