Let's Talk Inclusive Language: Dominant group vs. ... ?

Here’s a question I’ve gotten a few times in recent months. I’ll give you the shortest version:

“I’m confused about the best way to refer to people. Minority. Underrepresented. Marginalized. Non-dominant. Racialized. BIPOC. People of color. I want to be respectful but…I don’t know how to choose?”

I’m going to leave the race-specific stuff out of this response, since it’s a more particular set of considerations. (Let us know if you’d like me to cover this in a future column!)

What’s the best word to use to refer to a group of people who aren’t members of a dominant group? Well, it’s context dependent. But you can use linguistic science to figure out which word or phrase to choose for a given context.

Let’s start with a look at our old friend, the semantic frame.

Words point to things in the world. Sometimes more concrete (apple) and sometimes more abstract (capitalism).

A single word can generate an entire scenario, like a small play. For example, the verb borrow.

In the simplest version of borrow, there is a person who doesn’t own something and a person that does own that thing. The first person takes temporary possession of the thing — like a snow shovel or some money — with the idea that they will return it after not too much time. (We also use the word borrow for things we might not actually give back, like “Can I borrow your lipstick?” or “Can I borrow a cup of sugar?”)

The adjectives used to describe people who aren’t members of a given dominant group also invoke scenarios. And which word is best for a particular situation depends on which scenario is most relevant.

When we’re talking about diversity, equity, and inclusion (and any of the other words that are commonly included with these three, like justice, belonging, and accessibility), we’re usually looking at systemic obstacles and inequities.

One group of people has had greater access to opportunities. This group as a whole has more power, more money, and more resources. They are the business leaders, the political leaders, the cultural leaders. Their perspective is presented as normal, natural, and neutral. They are thought of as the default. This is the dominant group.

And then, there are people who have been systematically denied opportunities. Denied access to power, money, resources. Rarely promoted into business leadership, rarely elected to political leadership, rarely seen as cultural leaders. Their perspective is seen as specific, or “political,” or “woke” — they are marked as different and the other and not the default. People in this group are described as _____________. (Nope, no single answer. The adjective is dependent on the context.)

Why do we split people into these two overarching groups? The dominant group and the [other] group? Because it helps us figure out who is being denied opportunities and treated with bias. We can then create systemic solutions to fix things.

What are the most common dimensions of identity we use to analyze what’s happening? On the individual level, they are:

race and ethnicity
gender
sexual orientation
physical ability and disability, and
neurotypicality and neurodiversity.

And in a social context, they are:

language and dialect
socioeconomic class, and
religion.

Here in the US, race is one of the most important dimensions of identity when it comes to social dominance, especially when combined with gender and physical ability. In the US, the most dominant group is abled white men.

For readers in other countries, abledness and maleness will hold, but a characteristic other than race might be more relevant. Like ethnicity, or religion, or caste.

But no matter where you are, there is always a dominant group. This is a universal truth of humanity: we sort ourselves into hierarchies.* And, because of historical (and sometimes biological) factors, some groups of people end up on top of the hierarchy. And other groups get pushed down and pushed out.

Let’s go through some commonly used terms.

Minority

I recommend avoiding the term minority, as in minority group. That’s because the semantic frame it invokes is just numerical, with no relationship to power or dominance or history. In apartheid-era South Africa (like today), white people were the minority group. But definitively dominant.

Underrepresented

This is a little like minority, but better. What is the scenario it points to? One where there is a population division and representation isn’t proportionate. In other words, one type of person is overrepresented and another kind is underrepresented. When would this be relevant?

Say 50% of a population is perceived as female and 50% is perceived as male. (My research suggests that perception of gender is what’s most important when it comes to how people treat you.) But when you look at news broadcasts and newspapers and news on the radio, people seen as male are quoted and presented as expert sources 80% of the time and people seen as female just 20% of the time.

Then underrepresented is a great word to describe women in the context of news. I also recommend using overrepresented to make sure the focus is equally distributed when it comes to how out of balance things are. Another good context is in hiring and promotions — for example, in sales leadership or on engineering teams.

But when you start digging into why some people are overrepresented and others underrepresented, strict proportionality isn’t enough. This is when it’s probably time to use marginalized.

Marginalized

To be honest, I don’t love marginalized, because the scenario it invokes isn’t as clean a mapping as I would like. Marginalization feels very horizontal to me, a person or group pushed out from the center into the margins. But when it comes to systemic bias and inequality, there is both vertical and horizontal action. People are being pushed both down and out at the same time. Lower on the hierarchy and further out from the center.

So the semantic frame isn’t a great fit for the reality the word is supposed to be describing. (And my first principle of inclusive language is “Reflect reality.”) But it’s currently the best we’ve got — and dictionary definitions of marginalized suggest that the push downward is part of the flavor of the word.

What’s good about marginalized is that it has history in it. It says that people are in a marginal position today because they were pushed there in the past. And it suggests that they continue to be pushed there in the present.

So if you want to focus on historic and present-day bias, things like groups of people being denied bank loans and mortgages and educational opportunities and job offers and professional development and promotions and the ability to vote (and this list could go on and on), then marginalized is your best option.

And there you have it!

If you focus on the reason why you are differentiating between a dominant group and another group, you should be able to choose a word with the semantic frame that best matches up with your reason.

*Hierarchies seem to be far more important to allistic people than autistic people. But since allistic people are universally dominant, social hierarchies are also universal.

Inclusive language proficiency is essential for professional and organizational success. Worthwhile's strategic and inclusive language services increase engagement, productivity, and profitability.

Let's Talk Inclusive Language: Dominant group vs. ... ?

Minority

Underrepresented

Marginalized

HOMEABOUTSERVICESREAD, WATCH, LISTENCONTACT

HOME
ABOUT
SERVICES
READ, WATCH, LISTEN
CONTACT