How binary language prevents us from embracing diversity

It is easy to see the world as black or white with distinct, binary categories to classify people and objects, such as man or woman, poor or rich, and liberal or conservative. To some extent, this binary categorization is understandable: grey areas are messy, confusing, and complicated. A black and white view is much simpler and reassuring.

But grey areas actually represent real life. Our world is all about the nuances that make us unique by being both similar and different to others. The danger with binary language is that it forces a mindset of “us versus them,” which harms our ability to understand one another.

In my case, simplistic binary categorizations made me feel misunderstood. Growing up, I did not fully identify with the traditional definition of introversion and extroversion. What I later realized is that we don’t have to be labeled as introverts or extroverts: rather than binary, this personality trait is a spectrum along which we all fall. What if, instead, we used the words introverted and extroverted to indicate a direction on the spectrum rather than a finality? Or added the word ambivert to our vocabulary to describe people who fall closer to the middle?

Language is important to our progress as a society. Just think of the evolution of the LGBTQIA+ acronym over the last decades. As the recognition of diversity in gender expression and sexual orientation grew, so did the acronym. And one can only assume that it will continue to evolve. While critics argue that no one word, or set of words, can encompass the entire spectrum, I believe it remains a step forward towards further inclusivity. Imperfect language is still better than no language at all. It makes diverse gender expressions and social orientations become real.

Similarly, language is now being changed to include gender-nonconforming individuals. In French, pronouns are being created to reflect non-binary individuals. In English, this is accomplished through the increased use of the pronoun “they”. Language is not a one-and-done exercise. And our world is certainly not binary.

Recognizing binary language is not necessarily difficult. The challenge is recognizing when it becomes hurtful and limits our ability to effectively interact with one another.

Most of us actually prefer not to use binary language when referring to personal elements. Let’s take an everyday example: people rarely describe their house as solely big or small, instead preferring to provide detailed information like the square footage or the number of bedrooms. We have a desire to provide close-to-accurate representations.

So then why are we so quick to put everything else into categories?

If we like accuracy, then we should rethink how we talk about countries. Categorizing countries as developed and developing (or emerging) prevents us from seeing all the nuances between countries. Zambia and China are considerably different places, even though both would be labeled as developing. Countries’ level of development will change over time and language should provide further flexibility. We should consider then using a neutral measure, such as income levels, to classify countries from low- to high-income.

In addition to greater inclusivity, accuracy, and flexibility, moving away from binary language is also crucial to enable societal changes. This is particularly true when it comes to racism.

In the United States, 58% of people agree that race relations are generally bad. Despite agreeing on the issue, most would never admit to being racist. Part of the reason for the disconnect is that racism is seen as a binary issue: you either are racist or you’re not.

But racism, like most things, is a spectrum with, on one hand, a minority of people who are extremely racist and, on the other hand, a majority of people who are moderately racist and often unaware that they have committed acts of racism.

This perspective shift removes the idea that racist people are bad and non-racist people are good. It also makes it easier for white people especially to adopt the growth mindset necessary to address this societal issue.

While I agree that binary language can make it easier to digest the complexities of the world we live in, I also believe that there are very little to no situations in which it is better to use binary language.

This is particularly relevant for students at the Stanford Graduate School of Business (GSB). As future leaders and changemakers, they are expected to promote diversity and inclusion within their organizations, drive better collaboration between countries, ensure that teams are working together effectively, advance societal issues, and more. Changing how we speak about individuals and countries is a first step in meeting those expectations.

To borrow (and adapt) a famous line from GSB Organizational Behaviour class: change behaviors (and language) and attitudes will follow.

I’m optimistic that we will adapt our language. Grey areas might be messy but they are truly beautiful if you see them as the true essence of human life.