Let's Talk Inclusive Language: Is it ok to say “sanity”?

Here’s a recently submitted Inclusive Language question:

I have a question about the word sanity. Is this word ableist? I know crazy and insane are.

My friend is a consultant and has been using sane and sanity in her work for a while. Now she wants to start a whole new arm of her business with sanity in the title, “Sanity for [Redacted].” And there are workshops and tools with titles like “How to be a sane [redacted].”

I’m worried that this just doesn’t work anymore. I tried Googling the appropriateness of the term, but my results were ambiguous. Sanity test is clearly not ok anymore, but opinions were uncertain on the word sanity itself—and nobody said clearly you can’t use it.

So what do you think? What should I tell her?

You probably won’t be surprised to learn that I think it is time for this friend stop using sanity, especially in her business and workshop titles. It’s a problematic use of the term, and chances are good that she will 1) upset people who have a connection to mental illness (or other disabilities) and 2) get called out for ableist language. Even though she isn’t talking explicitly about insanity, the implicit contrast is there.

First, let’s talk about ableist language. This is a concept that seems less widely understood than other expressions of bias, like racist language or sexist language.

But it’s really quite simple: Ableist language presents disabled people as inherently problematic, incompetent, or simply having less value. It often dehumanizes or marginalizes disabled people.

I talk frequently about semantic frames. (In my book, I have a whole section devoted to how semantic frames relate to inclusive language.) These are the scenarios invoked by a word or phrase that tell us how to interpret the world around us.

For example, think about the word visitor. It tells us that there is a person who doesn’t live or work or otherwise “belong” in the location that is the scenario’s setting and is there for a limited amount of time. They are visiting. They are a visitor.

The scenarios invoked by ableist language cast disabled people in an inappropriately negative light.

This shows up in phrases like “fell on deaf ears” and “blind spot.”

These phrases don’t actually describe people who have a disability — here, limited hearing or limited vision. “Fell on deaf ears” doesn’t invoke a scenario where someone is deaf and because of it, something important goes unheard. “Blind spot” doesn’t invoke a scenario where someone has a visual impairment and so doesn’t see something.

Instead, these phrases invoke scenarios of people who are behaving in ways that feel inappropriate or wrong. For example, not listening to somebody when they should be. Or, because they are habitually inattentive when it comes to a particular person or topic, overlooking something important.
________

People have a choice when it comes to their behavior. But not when it comes to their disabilities.

They can’t help being blind or deaf. Or having mental illnesses that might cause people to call them “insane.”

So it’s inaccurate, and harmful, to link problematic behavior with disabilities. Even if it feels like those disabilities are related to the problematic behavior, if you dig a bit deeper, you can see that they are usually two separate things.

That’s why I don’t use blind spot any more in my work, even though it used to feel like a useful phrase when talking about subtle culture clashes. Now I talk about having blinders on. Because blinders are placed on you by someone else and, with some work, can be removed.

And I don’t use the phrase fell on deaf ears anymore. Because it’s not about being able or unable to hear. It’s about choosing to not listen, or to not offer any uptake. Now I use phrases like met with resistance or went unheard.
________

The same is true for sane and insane. These words are very often used to describe behavior and choices that aren’t about mental illness at all. Instead, they frequently describe people who are being clear or unclear, predictable or unpredictable, compassionate or unempathetic, controlling or not controlling anger, and more.

Linking these behavioral choices to mental health is ableist.

It’s ok to suggest to people that they should be clear, predictable, compassionate, and control their anger. Especially if they manage other people.

But it’s not ok to suggest that having these skills means someone is sane. Or that not having these skills means someone has mental health issues.

________

The inclusive option is to go more granular and focus on the behavioral specifics. What the friend’s readers or workshop participants have control over. What she is recommending that they tweak or change or highlight.

Instead of saying someone should be “sane” or an “island of sanity,” I recommend that she find another metaphor and another description. What are the granular behaviors that delineate a “sane” person in the circumstances she’s talking about? Then, what are other adjectives that can be used to describe those behaviors? That’s the process I recommend she go through to brainstorm and come up with alternatives.

What we find is that looking for granular alternatives to problematic words usually results in clearer, more precise, and more powerful language.

What’s more, with alternative phrasings, her work will be more inclusive of people with mental health issues who want to benefit from her insights. And it will protect her from being called out as ableist.

Ableist language permeates our everyday speech and writing. The more we can identify and replace it, the more precise and more accessible our language will be.

Worthwhile R&C provides organizations of all sizes the latest in inclusive language services.

Let's Talk Inclusive Language: Is it ok to say “sanity”?

HOMEABOUTSERVICESREAD, WATCH, LISTENCONTACT

HOME
ABOUT
SERVICES
READ, WATCH, LISTEN
CONTACT