The City of Doncaster Council issued a six-page “social care language guide” to its employees, advising them against using specific terms deemed to promote a “language of battles.” This includes terms like “frontline workers,” “duty,” “in the field,” “engagement,” “officers,” “army of carers,” and “heroes.” The council argues that such language implies conflict and defensiveness, hindering the development of “trusted, equal relationships” with those receiving care. Instead, the guide emphasizes focusing on “honest conversations” and building rapport. This directive sparked controversy, with critics arguing that it downplays the demanding and often heroic nature of social care work.
The language guide further discourages the use of phrases like “hard to reach” when referring to clients in remote areas, suggesting that it assigns blame. The council emphasizes the importance of mindful language, arguing that words shape perceptions and can cause unintended harm, confusion, or exclusion. The guide maintains that its purpose is not to police language or ban words but to encourage thoughtful communication. This rationale, however, has been met with skepticism, particularly given the extensive list of discouraged terms.
The council’s guidance extends to a range of other expressions commonly used in social care settings. Care workers are advised against referring to the act of receiving care as “getting care” and discouraged from labeling patients’ illnesses as “cases.” Furthermore, the guide discourages labeling elderly patients with complex needs as “challenging,” advocating instead for a focus on understanding individual circumstances and needs. The overarching message is to move away from language that portrays social care as a system in crisis, and instead emphasize positive aspects and potential for improvement.
The guide’s recommendations also extend to how care recipients are referred to. Terms like “vulnerable,” “non-compliant,” and even “clients” are discouraged. Instead, the council advises using the phrase “people drawing on support,” emphasizing the agency and autonomy of individuals receiving care. This approach reflects a broader shift in social care towards person-centered language and practices, focusing on individual needs and preferences. However, this specific recommendation, like others in the guide, has been criticized as overly sensitive and impractical.
Critics, including Toby Young, leader of the Free Speech Union, argue that the council’s language guide is overly restrictive and dismissive of the challenging realities faced by care workers. They contend that terms like “frontline workers” and “heroes” accurately reflect the dedication and hard work of these individuals, especially considering their often low pay and demanding workloads. The controversy surrounding the guide highlights a broader debate about the role of language in shaping perceptions of social care and the value placed on the work of care professionals. Critics see the guide as an example of “woke” ideology taken to extremes, while the council defends it as a necessary step towards fostering more respectful and person-centered communication.
The incident at Doncaster City Council underscores the ongoing tension between promoting inclusive language and respecting the realities of professional work environments. While the intention behind the language guide may be laudable, its implementation has been met with resistance and criticism. The debate raises important questions about how to balance the need for sensitive and respectful communication with the practicalities of everyday language use in demanding professions like social care. Furthermore, the controversy highlights the challenges of implementing top-down language reforms, particularly when they are perceived as disconnected from the lived experiences of those on the front lines of service delivery.
