In March I decided to look the other way when the ‘Values guideline for a new language’ was presented. This guide is part of theCode Diversity & Inclusion in the Cultural Sector‘ and the new language is intended as a ‘blueprint for all internal and external communication’ and a ‘tool to test all utterances’.
Museum signs must be diverse and inclusive. Just like panel discussions and exhibitions. Anyway, there is a lot to be said for that and as a strong supporter of diversity and inclusion I was happy to accept the new language that has been prepared for this by higher powers. This is how I like to see myself: humble.
But now I’m angry. In the past few weeks I received that guide from all sides and I was so unwise to read it. Perhaps concerned citizens sent me the text because cultural organizations are actually threatening to adhere to it. Or because at the beginning of November a ‘Event Code Diversity & Inclusion‘ takes place: an event with a live stream and a host and awards, so that there is reason to go to the blueprint and the tool to watch.
I got angry because of the tightness and closed-mindedness of the new language. The guide prescribes and disapproves. “Communicate at eye level” with a person in a wheelchair. Say “Dutch sign language interpreter” and not “sign language interpreter”. Don’t say “blind spot”, because that is validistic. Do you want input from homosexuals? Then say, “Maybe we could add a queer narrative to our stories.”
There is not only something patronizing, but also something belittling in this generous protection of the needy fellow man. Someone with a disability often takes company with them, it says. “Possibly, this plus one can assist the person with a disability.” I can imagine that ‘someone with a disability’ often goes to the theater with her husband or her mistress, but according to the guide she comes there with her ‘supporter’. What do you think, would those two still have sex?
In March it was already murmured. Clarinetist and composer Joris Roelofs be in de Volkskrant on an inner contradiction in the underlying thinking. The new language of the guideline aims to break through the ‘hetero cisgender, Eurocentric/colonial norm’ in the arts and culture sector and to promote ‘polyphony’. But by opting for safety, language drastically limits that polyphony, Roelofs thinks.
Because if ‘safety’ is the supervalue, he wrote, and hurting is to be avoided, can Lale Gül still count on support from the art sector once she writes a novel that hurts believers? Who are among the ‘marginalized’ groups protected by the code and who are not? Gül yes, readers not – Gül not, readers do? You would expect to see such conflicts and clashing views of life if you promise a culture where “everyone feels connected, valued, understood and welcome.”
Now that MPs want to debate about cleaning teaching methods for education, it is wise to discuss cleaning texts in the cultural sector in one go. After all, there is little difference in approach. Publishers of educational materials avoid stories about witches because Reformed Christians would not be served. The language code in the culture rejects the use of ‘he’ and ‘she’, because that would be sensitive. “Use gender-neutral personal pronouns, such as ‘Hen recognized themselves very much in the theme of their performance’.”
In both cases, you make a democratic conversation impossible by deciding in advance who is right. The present time, with its growing awareness of the diversity of people, demands great openness and mobility, participation and mutual conversation. This cannot be reconciled with initiatives that determine the language from above and by decree. On behalf of whom?
Say “transgender man” and not “transman”, writes the guide. Excuse me? Can we citizens figure that out for themselves? Indeed, an emancipation process is underway – and then a sounding board group full of experts would determine your identity and decide which word fits it? The know-it-all tendency in the cultural sector is an ugly obstacle to the emancipation of the citizen.
All in all, society is caught between two fires. On the one hand, the conservatives who believe that everyone should be like them. On the other hand, the diversity experts who, with government support, trim and trim diversity in such a way that little is left of it. Now let the rest try to have an open democratic conversation.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of October 12, 2021
In March I decided to look the other way when the ‘Values guideline for a new language’ was presented. This guide is part of theCode Diversity & Inclusion in the Cultural Sector‘ and the new language is intended as a ‘blueprint for all internal and external communication’ and a ‘tool to test all utterances’.
Museum signs must be diverse and inclusive. Just like panel discussions and exhibitions. Anyway, there is a lot to be said for that and as a strong supporter of diversity and inclusion I was happy to accept the new language that has been prepared for this by higher powers. This is how I like to see myself: humble.
But now I’m angry. In the past few weeks I received that guide from all sides and I was so unwise to read it. Perhaps concerned citizens sent me the text because cultural organizations are actually threatening to adhere to it. Or because at the beginning of November a ‘Event Code Diversity & Inclusion‘ takes place: an event with a live stream and a host and awards, so that there is reason to go to the blueprint and the tool to watch.
I got angry because of the tightness and closed-mindedness of the new language. The guide prescribes and disapproves. “Communicate at eye level” with a person in a wheelchair. Say “Dutch sign language interpreter” and not “sign language interpreter”. Don’t say “blind spot”, because that is validistic. Do you want input from homosexuals? Then say, “Maybe we could add a queer narrative to our stories.”
There is not only something patronizing, but also something belittling in this generous protection of the needy fellow man. Someone with a disability often takes company with them, it says. “Possibly, this plus one can assist the person with a disability.” I can imagine that ‘someone with a disability’ often goes to the theater with her husband or her mistress, but according to the guide she comes there with her ‘supporter’. What do you think, would those two still have sex?
In March it was already murmured. Clarinetist and composer Joris Roelofs be in de Volkskrant on an inner contradiction in the underlying thinking. The new language of the guideline aims to break through the ‘hetero cisgender, Eurocentric/colonial norm’ in the arts and culture sector and to promote ‘polyphony’. But by opting for safety, language drastically limits that polyphony, Roelofs thinks.
Because if ‘safety’ is the supervalue, he wrote, and hurting is to be avoided, can Lale Gül still count on support from the art sector once she writes a novel that hurts believers? Who are among the ‘marginalized’ groups protected by the code and who are not? Gül yes, readers not – Gül not, readers do? You would expect to see such conflicts and clashing views of life if you promise a culture where “everyone feels connected, valued, understood and welcome.”
Now that MPs want to debate about cleaning teaching methods for education, it is wise to discuss cleaning texts in the cultural sector in one go. After all, there is little difference in approach. Publishers of educational materials avoid stories about witches because Reformed Christians would not be served. The language code in the culture rejects the use of ‘he’ and ‘she’, because that would be sensitive. “Use gender-neutral personal pronouns, such as ‘Hen recognized themselves very much in the theme of their performance’.”
In both cases, you make a democratic conversation impossible by deciding in advance who is right. The present time, with its growing awareness of the diversity of people, demands great openness and mobility, participation and mutual conversation. This cannot be reconciled with initiatives that determine the language from above and by decree. On behalf of whom?
Say “transgender man” and not “transman”, writes the guide. Excuse me? Can we citizens figure that out for themselves? Indeed, an emancipation process is underway – and then a sounding board group full of experts would determine your identity and decide which word fits it? The know-it-all tendency in the cultural sector is an ugly obstacle to the emancipation of the citizen.
All in all, society is caught between two fires. On the one hand, the conservatives who believe that everyone should be like them. On the other hand, the diversity experts who, with government support, trim and trim diversity in such a way that little is left of it. Now let the rest try to have an open democratic conversation.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of October 12, 2021
In March I decided to look the other way when the ‘Values guideline for a new language’ was presented. This guide is part of theCode Diversity & Inclusion in the Cultural Sector‘ and the new language is intended as a ‘blueprint for all internal and external communication’ and a ‘tool to test all utterances’.
Museum signs must be diverse and inclusive. Just like panel discussions and exhibitions. Anyway, there is a lot to be said for that and as a strong supporter of diversity and inclusion I was happy to accept the new language that has been prepared for this by higher powers. This is how I like to see myself: humble.
But now I’m angry. In the past few weeks I received that guide from all sides and I was so unwise to read it. Perhaps concerned citizens sent me the text because cultural organizations are actually threatening to adhere to it. Or because at the beginning of November a ‘Event Code Diversity & Inclusion‘ takes place: an event with a live stream and a host and awards, so that there is reason to go to the blueprint and the tool to watch.
I got angry because of the tightness and closed-mindedness of the new language. The guide prescribes and disapproves. “Communicate at eye level” with a person in a wheelchair. Say “Dutch sign language interpreter” and not “sign language interpreter”. Don’t say “blind spot”, because that is validistic. Do you want input from homosexuals? Then say, “Maybe we could add a queer narrative to our stories.”
There is not only something patronizing, but also something belittling in this generous protection of the needy fellow man. Someone with a disability often takes company with them, it says. “Possibly, this plus one can assist the person with a disability.” I can imagine that ‘someone with a disability’ often goes to the theater with her husband or her mistress, but according to the guide she comes there with her ‘supporter’. What do you think, would those two still have sex?
In March it was already murmured. Clarinetist and composer Joris Roelofs be in de Volkskrant on an inner contradiction in the underlying thinking. The new language of the guideline aims to break through the ‘hetero cisgender, Eurocentric/colonial norm’ in the arts and culture sector and to promote ‘polyphony’. But by opting for safety, language drastically limits that polyphony, Roelofs thinks.
Because if ‘safety’ is the supervalue, he wrote, and hurting is to be avoided, can Lale Gül still count on support from the art sector once she writes a novel that hurts believers? Who are among the ‘marginalized’ groups protected by the code and who are not? Gül yes, readers not – Gül not, readers do? You would expect to see such conflicts and clashing views of life if you promise a culture where “everyone feels connected, valued, understood and welcome.”
Now that MPs want to debate about cleaning teaching methods for education, it is wise to discuss cleaning texts in the cultural sector in one go. After all, there is little difference in approach. Publishers of educational materials avoid stories about witches because Reformed Christians would not be served. The language code in the culture rejects the use of ‘he’ and ‘she’, because that would be sensitive. “Use gender-neutral personal pronouns, such as ‘Hen recognized themselves very much in the theme of their performance’.”
In both cases, you make a democratic conversation impossible by deciding in advance who is right. The present time, with its growing awareness of the diversity of people, demands great openness and mobility, participation and mutual conversation. This cannot be reconciled with initiatives that determine the language from above and by decree. On behalf of whom?
Say “transgender man” and not “transman”, writes the guide. Excuse me? Can we citizens figure that out for themselves? Indeed, an emancipation process is underway – and then a sounding board group full of experts would determine your identity and decide which word fits it? The know-it-all tendency in the cultural sector is an ugly obstacle to the emancipation of the citizen.
All in all, society is caught between two fires. On the one hand, the conservatives who believe that everyone should be like them. On the other hand, the diversity experts who, with government support, trim and trim diversity in such a way that little is left of it. Now let the rest try to have an open democratic conversation.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of October 12, 2021
In March I decided to look the other way when the ‘Values guideline for a new language’ was presented. This guide is part of theCode Diversity & Inclusion in the Cultural Sector‘ and the new language is intended as a ‘blueprint for all internal and external communication’ and a ‘tool to test all utterances’.
Museum signs must be diverse and inclusive. Just like panel discussions and exhibitions. Anyway, there is a lot to be said for that and as a strong supporter of diversity and inclusion I was happy to accept the new language that has been prepared for this by higher powers. This is how I like to see myself: humble.
But now I’m angry. In the past few weeks I received that guide from all sides and I was so unwise to read it. Perhaps concerned citizens sent me the text because cultural organizations are actually threatening to adhere to it. Or because at the beginning of November a ‘Event Code Diversity & Inclusion‘ takes place: an event with a live stream and a host and awards, so that there is reason to go to the blueprint and the tool to watch.
I got angry because of the tightness and closed-mindedness of the new language. The guide prescribes and disapproves. “Communicate at eye level” with a person in a wheelchair. Say “Dutch sign language interpreter” and not “sign language interpreter”. Don’t say “blind spot”, because that is validistic. Do you want input from homosexuals? Then say, “Maybe we could add a queer narrative to our stories.”
There is not only something patronizing, but also something belittling in this generous protection of the needy fellow man. Someone with a disability often takes company with them, it says. “Possibly, this plus one can assist the person with a disability.” I can imagine that ‘someone with a disability’ often goes to the theater with her husband or her mistress, but according to the guide she comes there with her ‘supporter’. What do you think, would those two still have sex?
In March it was already murmured. Clarinetist and composer Joris Roelofs be in de Volkskrant on an inner contradiction in the underlying thinking. The new language of the guideline aims to break through the ‘hetero cisgender, Eurocentric/colonial norm’ in the arts and culture sector and to promote ‘polyphony’. But by opting for safety, language drastically limits that polyphony, Roelofs thinks.
Because if ‘safety’ is the supervalue, he wrote, and hurting is to be avoided, can Lale Gül still count on support from the art sector once she writes a novel that hurts believers? Who are among the ‘marginalized’ groups protected by the code and who are not? Gül yes, readers not – Gül not, readers do? You would expect to see such conflicts and clashing views of life if you promise a culture where “everyone feels connected, valued, understood and welcome.”
Now that MPs want to debate about cleaning teaching methods for education, it is wise to discuss cleaning texts in the cultural sector in one go. After all, there is little difference in approach. Publishers of educational materials avoid stories about witches because Reformed Christians would not be served. The language code in the culture rejects the use of ‘he’ and ‘she’, because that would be sensitive. “Use gender-neutral personal pronouns, such as ‘Hen recognized themselves very much in the theme of their performance’.”
In both cases, you make a democratic conversation impossible by deciding in advance who is right. The present time, with its growing awareness of the diversity of people, demands great openness and mobility, participation and mutual conversation. This cannot be reconciled with initiatives that determine the language from above and by decree. On behalf of whom?
Say “transgender man” and not “transman”, writes the guide. Excuse me? Can we citizens figure that out for themselves? Indeed, an emancipation process is underway – and then a sounding board group full of experts would determine your identity and decide which word fits it? The know-it-all tendency in the cultural sector is an ugly obstacle to the emancipation of the citizen.
All in all, society is caught between two fires. On the one hand, the conservatives who believe that everyone should be like them. On the other hand, the diversity experts who, with government support, trim and trim diversity in such a way that little is left of it. Now let the rest try to have an open democratic conversation.
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of October 12, 2021