Mind your language

I witnessed a most disturbing outbreak of antisocial behaviour the other week. As with most disputes, a difference of opinion lay at its heart and once that had been confused by misunderstandings it started to get out of hand.

Once a dispute reaches that stage, people begin to label one another, and stereotypes begin to emerge. Assumptions follow and each side soon builds up a very negative image of the other.

Sound familiar? Of course – it’s a very natural human reaction to conflict. And at this point, regardless of the accusations flying around, people in a dispute nearly always become defensive. In the situation I witnessed, this then heightened the emotions, and the clarity and quality of the language deteriorated further still. When a dispute reaches this level, the original issue often becomes hidden and the conflict is ready to escalate out of control.

I think the most disturbing aspect of this dispute was that it appeared in the letters page of Housing Today, and the issue, ironically, was to do with ASBOs.

In light of some of the widely reported “dodgy” uses of ASBOs, it is hard for me not to have concerns about them. Although there are many cases where mediation is inappropriate and sterner interventions are required, I object strongly to the language that is often used in the debate.

First, can anyone give me a definition as to what a “decent person” is?

The director of housing at Manchester council (18 March, page 23) seems to be confident enough to use the term, and by no means is he alone. Now, I accept you can measure and judge decent or acceptable behaviour, but with the general term “antisocial behaviour” we are often just discussing differences in lifestyle. And in that context defining decent behaviour is hard enough – let alone decent people.

Second, at what point does a child become a yob? Again, we may have some common understanding as to what yobbish behaviour is, but the label is useless in seeking out long-term solutions.

I had hoped that perhaps a recent copy of The Times would offer more constructive language – but alas, their contributors compounded the problem with their choice of verbs. Apparently louts “plague” communities, and hooligans “terrorise”.

The only thing that any of this language achieves is to vent one’s own emotion and encourage it in others. That is not a responsible way of conducting a professional debate about a serious issue.

Have a look at your equal opportunity policies – documents designed to ensure we are not unfairly treated through labelling and stereotyping. They usually define acceptable and unacceptable behaviour and are supported by the criminal and civil justice systems, which can curb our rights if our behaviour steps outside agreed boundaries.

Now, look closely – I guarantee you that absolutely none has the words “yob” or “decent person” anywhere in the text.

If those words are inappropriate for your policies, then surely they are inappropriate in all professional communication. If that is the case, then they definitely have no place in a debate on the letters page.

We know that our clients and tenants are in the wrong when they resort to name-calling during a neighbour dispute.So, can we please stop this negative and, dare I say it, antisocial behaviour? Remember – label the behaviour, not the person. Debate the issues, not the characters. And stop terrorising this debate – the decent people among us are sick and tired of your yobbish behaviour (see – it’s not nice, is it?).