.ltStaying out of the clutches of the all-embracing male
The Times,
11 December 1987:comment
I wonder if there are any distinguished, cultured gentlemen, of irreproachable respectability and impeccable English style, who might be prevailed upon to declare a policy of using "they" as a singular pronoun. No doubt it is too much to hope for. Still, it's a pity, if so, since they may be missing an opportunity to perform not only an act of genuine chivalry to women, but also (unlikely as it may sound) a service to the English language.
The trouble with debates about sexism and language is that they tend to reflect only the views of two extreme groups: hard-line feminists who couldn't care less about any aspect of ("male") culture, and dyed-in-grain conservatives who think that women, language and everything else should be as they were 50 years ago, as God and Nature intended. We hear virtually nothing (perhaps because it is hardly aware of its own existence) from a much more promising group in between, which can recognize that many linguistic (and other) traditions do work systematically to the detriment of women, but would prefer to put things right without adopting a cultural scorched earth policy.
There can be no doubt that language is seriously sexist in many places. To take the central, if overworked, issue of "he", no one who took the trouble to look at the conventions for its use could possibly go on subscribing to the myth that it really was sex-neutral. You cannot with linguistic propriety say to a mixed group "Everyone must examine his own conscience," not announce "Someone has confessed that he stole the money" when the thief was a woman. "He" does not mean he or she; it means "he". It follows from this, despite all protests, that anyone who says "the next chairman will have a job on his hands" is presuming the next chairman will be male, and perpetuating traditional expectations about which sex does what. And expectations, as research has shown over and over again, enormously influence events.
If sexual justice matters, therefore, something must be done. But what, if we have sensitive ears for the language, and cannot face the clumsiness of he or she?
My own policy, and I suspect that of many others in the same quandary, has been a resort to paraphrase; "everyone has his own opinion" can always become "people all have their own opinions". But this really is a cowardly evasion. Because such devices are (deliberately) invisible, they cannot be seen as a protest about sexist forms of speech. And as well as this they involve an impoverishment of the language: the bland plural forms are no stylistic substitute for the powerful, deeply-entrenched singular constructions which traditionally take "he". Evasion won't do. We need a sex-neutral singular pronoun, and nothing seems so suitable for the purpose as "they".
To start with, it has the stylistic advantage over all rivals that the beginnings of a systematic singular use are already well entrenched. Jane Austen uses it (which is enough on its own to guarantee respectability) and there are many contexts in which it comes trippingly off all our tongues, at least when we think no one is looking. And in advocacy of its becoming grammatically acceptable, we have an admirable precedent in the singular use of "you", which was once plural. Anyone who thinks that a singular "they" is irredeemably objectionable had better go back to using "thou".
This also provides a pattern for extending a singular "they" into contexts where it is not yet entrenched, many of which will turn out to present problems. For instance, you yourself suggests a singular they themself. Why not? We should soon get used to it.
The trouble is, however, that this least objectionable of language changes to avoid sexism is also one of the hardest to establish, simply because a singular "they" looks like a grammatical mistake. No one wants to take unilateral action whose only effect will be to make themself appear illiterate.
Perhaps we might get somewhere by adopting a (temporary) convention such as a subscript (f) ("they(f)") to point out that our singular "they"s were feminist, not ungrammatical. But what is really needed is support - and most of all the declared support of people whose opinions carry weight, and who can neither be dismissed as hysterical women not suspected of inadvertent linguistic infelicity. Hence the suggestion at the beginning of this piece.
Not, of course, that we are going to find such people falling over each other in the eager rush to join the struggle; most of the action will have to come from women. However, men whose chivalry stops short of the undermining of their own privileges might still pause to consider the other aspect of the matter - the language.
The fact is, will we, nill we, anti-sexist policies are taking hold. Increasingly authors find manuals of approved usage thrust into their hands, and their work subjected to decontaminating copy-editing. He or she is perhaps the commonest approved device, but even worse ideas are milling around: alternations of he and she, a determined use of she, and a variety of experimental pronouns from the unpronounceable "s/he" to inventions like "e" and "hesh". At present everything is in flux, but when the confusion dies down we are all too likely to find that some such horror has entrenched itself.
So anyone who cares about the language, whether they see the advance of feminism as desirable or merely as inevitable, had better look sharp. Time is running out. It may already be too late to do anything about Ms (even though the much more attractive option of Mrs for married and unmarried women alike-a tradition far older than the Miss/Mrs distinction-has always been available), and extremely quick thinking is needed if we are to find an acceptable solution to the intractable problem of man before we are completely overtaken by the ungainly; creeping "person". If "they" will not do we had better find something else which will, lest we find our grandchildren saying that hesh who hides hesh head in the sand must blame heshself for the consequences.
