Hi there đź‘‹ Have you noticed how often the word "others" appears in policy texts? My previous articles dealt with "us and them" divisions in signs and the built environment.
This week's article explores the same pattern but in texts, where the "others" are not tacit but clearly visible [1]. The analysis draws on work by Stina Ericsson, Angelina Aravena Leiva, and Elin Fluur from our Syntax of Equality project (see Film No. 7 in our video series, in Swedish, on nonclusive urban development).
How "Us" and "Them" Appears in Texts – And How to Avoid It
Here's a first example, from a municipal policy text in Sweden: "People with disabilities can move around and use all indoor and outdoor environments in the city on equal terms with others." The division can be avoided with a slight adjustment to the text: "All residents can move around and use all indoor and outdoor environments in the city."
Notice the shift: from singling out one group to stating what applies to everyone. Why is this important? Once we have created a norm group and a deviant group, this separation often dominates when designing new buildings and environments.
Here's another example: "Research shows that LGBTQI people, compared to other employees, are more often subjected to offensive treatment, harassment and bullying at work." Here, the problem shifts from people to norms. It's not LGBTQI people who are the problem; it's workplace norms that enable discrimination and harassment. Compare this with: "Discrimination, harassment and bullying at work are based on norms regarding gender and sexuality."
And a third one: "The conditions for getting to and from work and school safely should be the same for men, women, girls, boys and others." Again, this can easily be avoided: "The municipality shall ensure that footpaths, cycle paths, roads and public transport for journeys between home, work and school are safe and equal." In this example, the solution is to not say anything at all about "who" this is for.
What I find interesting in these examples is that "others" doesn't always mean the same thing. In the first two examples, "others" refers to the norm group (the majority, the "us"). In the third example, "others" marks those who deviate from "men, women, girls, boys", in other words, all those who don't fit these categories. The same word can mark both being placed inside and outside the norm.
Checklist for Avoiding "Us" and "Them" in Texts
1. Be wary of dividing people into "us" and "them"
Is it possible to write in a different way, where there is instead a single, shared "us"? If a division into different groups of people needs to be made, are the groups described in an equivalent way? Consider what is presented as the problem. Perhaps it is not people who are the problem, but something in the context?
2. Check for "others"
Does the word "others" appear in the text? Are "others" "us" or "them"? How can you describe "others" in a way that is equivalent to other groups of people in the text? Or can you instead write about a common "we", where "we" can include diversity?
3. Check for "all"
Does the word "all" appear in the text? Is it really about everyone, or is there a hidden "us and them"? How can you change "all" to really mean everyone?
Norms and deviations are something that we humans have created. They are not given by nature or inevitable.
We can change them. Or, what do you think?
References
- Ericsson, S., & Hedvall, P. O. (2024). Situation, Non-categorisation, and Variation—Conveying Nonclusion Through Text and Image. In Difference – Sketching, Visualising and challenging Universal Design in Sweden (Vol. 19, pp. 31–50). Design for All Institute of India. http://designforall.in/?mdocs-file=2472
- Ericsson, S. (2023). Equality, marginalisation, and hegemonic negotiation: Embodied understandings of the built and designed environment. Multimodality & Society, 3(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/26349795231178936
