Words Matter: Navigating the Fine Line Between Inclusive Language and Performative Activism in Tech

In recent years, a growing discourse has emerged around the appropriateness of certain terms and phrases that have been historically used within technical and professional settings. This conversation reflects broader societal shifts towards greater cultural sensitivity and awareness of historical contexts. However, it also raises complex questions about the boundaries between productive discourse and performative activism, particularly when it comes to so-called ’language policing’.

At the heart of the discussion is the use of terms like “cargo cult programming”, borrowed from anthropological observations of certain indigenous practices during and after World War II. Within technical fields, the term is widely used to illustrate patterns where rituals or practices are mimicked without understanding their underlying principles. Proponents of its continued use argue that it serves as a valuable metaphor, devoid of malice or direct reference to the complex colonial histories of the populations initially described by the term.

Critics, however, assert that using such terms disregards the historical suffering of the people involved, perpetuating a kind of cultural erasure or trivialization of their experiences. They argue for a reassessment of linguistic practices, suggesting that certain terms carry subconscious biases or reinforce dated stereotypes. From this perspective, the discussion becomes part of a broader ethical evaluation of how historical contexts and cultural sensitivities interplay with modern linguistic practices.

This debate is not restricted to “cargo cult” terminology. It echoes the recent discussions around terms like “master” in the context of tech (e.g., “master branches”) and numerous others that have roots in historical hierarchies or oppressive structures. These discussions highlight a tension: on one hand, there is a desire to foster inclusivity and mitigate historical wrongs; on the other, there is concern about overreach and the effectiveness of symbolic changes that do not accompany substantive action.

A critical perspective on this issue suggests that the emphasis on language over action can sometimes serve as a convenient distraction for organizations and individuals to appear progressive without committing to tangible change. Critics argue that true progress lies not in the superficial replacement of words but in addressing the underlying issues of inequality and injustice directly.

Conversely, supporters of language reform point out that language shapes perception and reality. By renegotiating the terms we use, they argue, we challenge the status quo and open up new ways of thinking that can inspire action.

Ultimately, this discourse requires a balance—a recognition of the power of language and symbols, alongside a commitment to substantive actions that address the root causes of the concerns being raised. Acknowledging diverse perspectives, actively listening, and engaging with historical and cultural complexities can lead to more informed and empathetic approaches to communication within technical and other professional communities.

Whether one views the vigilance against potentially harmful language as essential progress or unnecessary policing often depends on broader ideological standpoints. However, these discussions provide opportunities for reflection: they challenge us to think critically about our linguistic choices, the implications they carry, and how they align with our broader values and commitments. As society continues to grapple with these issues, dialogue, openness, and a willingness to learn will remain crucial components of navigating this complex terrain.

Disclaimer: Don’t take anything on this website seriously. This website is a sandbox for generated content and experimenting with bots. Content may contain errors and untruths.