Network Working Group M. Knodel
Internet-Draft ARTICLE 19
Intended status: Best Current Practice N. ten Oever
Expires: April 25, 2019 University of Amsterdam
October 22, 2018
Terminology, Power and Oppressive Language
draft-knodel-terminology-00
Abstract
This document argues for and describes alternatives that shift
specific language conventions used by RFC Authors and RFC Editors to
avoid oppressive terminology in the technical documentation of the
RFC series. Specifically, this document details two sets of terms
that are normalised on the technical level but oppressive on a
societal level. First, arguments are presented for why any
oppressive terms should be avoided by the IETF/IRTF. Second, problem
statements for both sets of terms are presented and alternatives are
proposed. There is a third section on additional considerations and
general action points to address the RFC series, past and future.
Lastly, a summary of recommendations is presented.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 25, 2019.
Knodel & ten Oever Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Terminology October 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology and power at the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1. Master-slave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.1. Suggested alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2. Blacklist-whitelist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.1. Suggested alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3. Other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2. Summary of recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1. Terminology and power at the IETF
The primary function of the IETF is to publish documents that are
"readable, clear, consistent, and reasonably uniform" and one
function of the RFC Editor is to "[c]orrect larger content/clarity
issues; flag any unclear passages for author review" [RFC7322].
Given the importance of communication at the IETF, it is worth
considering the effects of terminology that has been identified as
oppressive, racist and sexist. Furthermore, we argue that certain
obviously oppressive terms be avoided and suggest alternatives.
These sets of terms are "master-slave" and "white-blacklist" for
their racist and race-based meanings. Since the IETF is dedicated to
a "culture of open participation and diverse collaboration"
[RFC7704], terms that can create a hostile work environment should be
avoided.
Knodel & ten Oever Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Terminology October 2018
According to the work of scholar Heather Brodie Graves from 1993,
"one goal of the application of rhetorical theory in the technical
communication classroom is to assess the appropriateness of
particular terms and to evaluate whether these terms will facilitate
or hinder the readers' understanding of the technical material"
[BrodieGravesGraves]. This implies that in order to effectively
communicate the content of RFCs to all readers, it is important for
Authors to consider the kinds of terms or language conventions that
may inadvertently get in the way of effective communication. She
continues, "complex and subtle configurations of sexist, racist, or
ethnocentric language use in technical documents can derail or
interfere with readers' ability and desire to comprehend and follow
important information."
Indeed, problems of language are problems of everyday speech. Racist
and sexist language is rampant and similarly counter-productive in
other sectors, notably social work [Burgest]. The terms "master-
slave," treated in detail below are present in other realms of
technology, notably "automotive clutch and brake systems, clocks,
flip-flop circuits, computer drives, and radio transmitters"
[Eglash]. And the ubiquitous word "robot" is the Czech word for
"slave" [Kurfess].
However as noted in the research by Ron Eglash, this seemingly
entrenched technical terminology is relatively recent and can be
replaced with alternative metaphors that are more accurate, clearer,
less distracting, and that do not offend their readers. Language
matters and metaphors matter. Indeed, metaphors can be incredibly
useful devices to make more human the complex technical concepts
presented in RFCs. Metaphors should not be avoided but rather taken
seriously. Renowned linguist George Lakoff argued in 1980 that the
ubiquitous use of metaphors in our everyday speech indicates a
fundamental instinct to "structure our most basic understandings of
experience" [Lakoff]. Metaphors structure relationships, and they
frame possibilities and impossibilities [Wyatt].
Like Graves, this document recognises the monumental challenge of
addressing linguistics and power and attempts to "promote awareness
that may lead to eventual wide-spread change" [BrodieGravesGraves].
To that effect, below is a tersely written list of IETF-specific
arguments as to why the RFC Editor should be encouraged to correct
larger content and clarity issues with respect to oppressive
metaphors:
- The RFC series is intended to remain online in perpetuity.
Societal attitudes to oppressive language shift over time in the
direction of more empathy, not less.
Knodel & ten Oever Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Terminology October 2018
- That oppressive terms in RFCs are largely hidden from the larger
public, or read only by engineers, is no excuse to ignore social-
level reactions to the terms. If the terms would be a poor choice
for user-facing application features, the terms should be avoided
in technical documentation and specifications, too.
- The digital technology community has a problem with monoculture.
And because the diversity of the technical community is already a
problem, a key strategy to breaking monoculture is to ensure that
technical documentation is addressed to a wide audience and
multiplicity of readers.
- And yet the technical community is not entirely comprised of only
white men. Eradicating the use of oppressive terminology in
official RFCs recognises the presence of and acknowledges the
requests from black and brown engineers and from women and gender-
non-conforming engineers to avoid the use of oppressive
terminology.
What follow are specific alternative suggestions to "master-slave"
and "white-blacklist" and the rationale for the use of the
alternatives.
1.1. Master-slave
Master-slave is an oppressive metaphor that will and should never
become fully detached from history. Aside from being unprofessional
and oppressive it stifles participation according to Eglash: "If the
master-slave metaphor affected these tough-minded engineers who had
the gumption to make it through a technical career back in the days
when they may have been the only black persons in their classes, what
impact might it have on black students who are debating whether or
not to enter science and technology careers at all?" [Eglash].
Aside from the arguably most important reason outlined above, the
term set is becoming less used and therefore increasingly less
compatible as more communities move away from its use (eg [Python],
[Drupal], and [Django]. The usage of 'master' and 'slave' in
hardware and software has been halted by the Los Angeles County
Office of Affirmative Action, the Django community, the Python
community and several other programming languages. This was done
because the language is oppressive and hurts people in the community
[Django2]. It is also no longer in use at the IEEE.
In addition to being inappropriate and arcane, the master-slave
metaphor is both technically and historically inaccurate. For
instance, in DNS the 'slave' is able to refuse zone transfers on the
ground that it is malformed. The metaphor is incorrect historically
Knodel & ten Oever Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Terminology October 2018
given the most recent centuries during which "the role of the master
was to abdicate and the role of the slave was to revolt"
[McClelland]. Yet in another sense slavery is also not 'just an
historic term', whereas freedom from slavery is a human-rights issue
[UDHR], it continues to exist in the present [Wikipedia].
Furthermore, this term set wasn't revived until recently, after WWII,
and after many of the technologies that adopted it were already in
use with different terminology [Eglash].
Lastly, we present not an additional rationale against their use, but
an indicator of actual racism in the community that has been surfaced
as a result of this larger debate among technologists, "I don't
believe in PC (political correctness), mostly because the minorities
constantly use it to get away with anything" [Jansens]. This
illustrates the need to, as Graves is cited above as saying, continue
to raise awareness within our community for eventual, lasting change
on the continued front of struggle against the racists amongst us.
1.1.1. Suggested alternatives
There are also many other relationships that can be used as
metaphors, Eglash's research calls into question the accuracy of the
master-slave metaphor. Fortunately, there are ample alternatives for
the master-slave relationship. Several options are suggested here
and should be chosen based on the pairing that is most clear in
context:
- Primary-secondary
- Leader-follower
- Active-standby
- Primary-replica
- Writer-reader
- Coordinator-worker
- Parent-helper
Since the use of master-slave is becoming less common in other
technical communities, it is best to simply duplicate the metaphor
being used by comparable or interoperable technologies. Likewise,
the IETF can show positive leadership in the technical community by
setting standards without using oppressive metaphors.
Knodel & ten Oever Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Terminology October 2018
1.2. Blacklist-whitelist
Like master-slave, the metaphorical use of white-black to connote
good-evil is oppressive. While master-slave might seem like a more
egregious example of racism, white-black is arguably worse because it
is more pervasive and therefore more sinister. While recent
headlines have decried the technical community's use of master-slave,
there is far less discussion about white-black despite its
importance. There is even a name for this pervasive language
pitfall: the association of white with good and black with evil is
known as the "bad is black effect" [Grewal].
Indeed, there is an entire book on the subject, written by renowned
authority on race, Franz Fanon. In his book "Black Skin, White
Masks," Fanon makes several persuasive arguments that standard
language encodes subconscious in-group, out-group preferences
[Fanon].
In the case of blacklist-whitelist in the technical documentation of
the IETF/IRTF, it is entirely a term of art and an arbitrary
metaphorical construct with no technical merit. There are scientific
uses of black that are related to light- blackholes are black because
light cannot escape them; a spectrographic blackbox is used as a
metaphor for things that cannot be seen (e.g., blackbox is really a
riff on the metaphor for light as visibility). Blacklist-whitelist
is not a metaphor for lightness or darkness, it is a good-evil
metaphor and therefore entirely based in racism. This trope has
significant impact on how people are seen and treated. As we've seen
with metaphors, its use is pervasive and, though not necessarily
conscious, perceptions do get promulgated through culture and
repetition.
As with master-slave, we save our technical argument for last,
referencing and presenting first the reasons for the use of non-
oppressive, alternative terminology for the sake of our humanity.
Indeed, our technical argument is incredibly succinct: Why use a
metaphor when a direct description is both succinct and clear? There
can be absolutely no ambiguity if one uses the terms, as suggested
below, allow-block rather than white-black.
1.2.1. Suggested alternatives
There are alternatives to this terminology set that vastly improve
clarity because they are not even metaphors without adding a single
additional character. The alternatives proposed here say exactly
what they mean:
- Blocklist-allowlist
Knodel & ten Oever Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Terminology October 2018
- Block-permit
1.3. Other considerations
As we have seen, the language used in technical documentation, like
all written text, creates and reinforces expectations and
stereotypes. We propose nothing more than additional care in the
choice of language just as care is taken in defining standards and
protocols themselves. The above two examples are not exhaustive, nor
are they mere examples. However, we use this section to broaden the
context of other oppressive terminologies to encompass additional
concerns.
There are many other metaphors present in technical documentation
that are "terms of art" but that have no technical basis whatsoever.
That some of these metaphors are oppressive leaves no excuses for
their continued use. A term like "man-in-the-middle" is not
technically useful. It is not a standard term, not as clear as its
alternative "on-path attacker", and should therefore be avoided.
When presented with the opportunity to employ the use of metaphors or
to parrot terms of art that connote gender or race, Authors should
simply find a better way to explain themselves. A fun read on the
politics of colloquial speech by George Orwell should dissuade any
clever Author from using tired explanatory metaphors [Orwell].
Up until recently, strict English grammatists like Orwell decried the
use of the neuter pronoun "they". Without a neuter singular pronoun,
"he" is assumed as the default singular pronoun when the gender of
the person is unknown or ambiguous. However, that has changed, and
it is now widely accepted that "they" can be used as a neuter
singular pronoun. Since it is unlikely that all implementers and
infrastructure operators are of any particular gender, "he" should
never be used to refer to a person in IETF/IRTF documents. An Author
who uses male examples sets male-ness as a standard.
Militarised metaphors are also a pervasive problem in language,
perhaps even more so in technical communities because of the
historical and actual relationship between technology and war. We
welcome additional examples of terminology that might be avoided
through more awareness and thoughtfulness.
2. Summary of recommendations
To summarise this document, we have bulleted some very concrete
action points that can be taken by Editors, reviewers and Authors,
both present and future.
Authors SHOULD:
Knodel & ten Oever Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Terminology October 2018
- Replace the oppressive term "master-slave" with more accurate
alternatives, for instance from the list of Section 1.1.
- Replace the oppressive term "blacklist-whitelist" with more
accurate alternative, for instance from the list of suggested
alternatives at Section 1.2.
- Reflect on their use of metaphors generally
- Use the neuter "they" as the singular pronoun and
- Consider to roll back technical hard coding of their code and
protocols with the documented knowledge available online
[socketwench].
RFC Editor and Reviewers SHOULD: * Offer alternatives for oppressive
terminology as an important act of correcting larger editorial issues
and clarifying technical concepts and * Suggest to Authors that even
when referencing other specifications that have not replaced
oppressive terminology they could provide another term with a note
that the term is original and not being suggested by the Author.
3. Security Considerations
As this document concerns a research document, there are no security
considerations.
4. IANA Considerations
This document has no actions for IANA.
5. References
5.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
5.2. Informative References
[BrodieGravesGraves]
Heather Brodie Graves, . and . Roger Graves, "Masters,
slaves, and infant mortality: Language challenges for
technical editing", Technical Communication Quarterly,
7:4, 389-414 , 1998,
<https://doi.org/10.1080/10572259809364639>.
Knodel & ten Oever Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Terminology October 2018
[Burgest] Burgest, David., ""Racism in Everyday Speech and Social
Work Jargon."", Social Work, vol. 18, no. 4, 1973, pp.
20-25 , 1973, <www.jstor.org/stable/23711113.>.
[Django] fcurella, ., "#22667 replaced occurrences of master-slave
terminology with leader/follower #2692", 2014,
<https://github.com/django/django/pull/2692>.
[Django2] lynncyrin, ., "comment on #22667 replaced occurrences of
master-slave terminology with leader/follower #2692",
2014, <https://github.com/django/django/
pull/2692#issuecomment-44221563>.
[Drupal] Xano, ., "Replace 'master-slave' terminology with
'primary/replica'", 2014,
<https://www.drupal.org/project/drupal/issues/2275877>.
[Eglash] Ron Eglash, ., "Broken Metaphor: The Master-Slave Analogy
in Technical Literature.", Technology and Culture, vol. 48
no. 2, 2007, pp. 360-369. , 2007, <doi:10.1353/
tech.2007.0066>.
[Fanon] Fanon, F., "Black skin, white masks", 1952.
[Grewal] Grewal, D., "The 'Bad Is Black' Effect", 2017,
<https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/
the-bad-is-black-effect/>.
[Jansens] Bart Jansens, ., "I don't believe in PC", 2008,
<https://www.drupal.org/project/project_issue_file_review/
issues/343414#comment-1164514>.
[Kurfess] Kurfess, Thomas., "Robotics and Automation Handbook",
2005.
[Lakoff] George Lakoff, . and . Mark Johnson, "Metaphors We Live
By", U of Chicago P, 1980. , n.d..
[McClelland]
McClelland, J., "We need better metaphors", 2011,
<https://current.workingdirectory.net/posts/2011/
master-slave>.
[Orwell] George Orwell, ., "Politics and the English Language",
1946.
Knodel & ten Oever Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Terminology October 2018
[Python] Daniel Oberhaus, ., "'master-slave' Terminology Was
Removed from Python Programming Language", 2018,
<https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8x7akv/
masterslave-terminology-was-removed-from-python-
programming-language>.
[RFC7322] Flanagan, H. and S. Ginoza, "RFC Style Guide", RFC 7322,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7322, September 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7322>.
[RFC7704] Crocker, D. and N. Clark, "An IETF with Much Diversity and
Professional Conduct", RFC 7704, DOI 10.17487/RFC7704,
November 2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7704>.
[socketwench]
socketwench, ., "Even in tech, words matter", 2018,
<https://deninet.com/blog/2018/09/09/
even-tech-words-matter>.
[UDHR] United Nations General Assembly, "The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights", 1948,
<http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/>.
[Wikipedia]
Wikipedia, "Slavery in the 21st century", 2018,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Talk:Slavery_in_the_21st_century>.
[Wyatt] Sally Wyatt, ., "Danger! Metaphors at Work in Economics,
Geophysiology, and the Internet", Science, Technology, &
Human Values, Volume: 29 issue: 2, page(s): 242-261 ,
2004.
Authors' Addresses
Mallory Knodel
ARTICLE 19
EMail: mallory@article19.org
Niels ten Oever
University of Amsterdam
EMail: mail@nielstenoever.net
Knodel & ten Oever Expires April 25, 2019 [Page 10]