On the problem of communication in a diverse society

At present, beyond occasional guidelines for international meetings such as those of the GSMERH (Global Society for Migration Ethnicity Race & Health) and debates between academics, there is very little international debate about the issue of terminology and diversity. This may stem from the apparent hegemony of English and a lack of capacity to debate terms across or between languages. In general, there is a tendency to shy away from discussing how language can be discriminatory, distressing or damaging. There is more commonly, at least in political life, a discussion about “woke” or “politically correct” language, as if this represented an unacceptable brake on the use of terms that the proponents of such arguments would espouse. Alternatively, it is argued that these are the “scientific or appropriate technical terms” as if there were no room for debate or development in the use of language. And yet lists or directories such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the United States MESH terms are recognised as essential tools in communication between professionals. And the Disability movements have certainly been active in arguing for non-stigmatising use of terms such as “blind” and “deaf”, “handicapped”, and the like, while there is a lively debate around the labelling and categorisation of gender, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity. These, however, have barely touched the consciousness, we argue, of the health scientific community and public health. This workshop with Bernadette Kumar, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Mark Johnson, De Montfort University Leicester and Raj Bhopal, University of Edinburgh seeks to raise the level of debate and start the process of movement towards a more informed and useful conversation that will facilitate and improve communication and respect between the “describers” and the “described”, as well as in scientific usage.