Some people object to the term "non-white" on the grounds that "non-X", where "X" is "white" inherently implies white to be the normal, unexceptional, unmarked state
( Read more... )
The way I see it (ie simplistically) a "non-x" label is reasonable wherever x is a non-binary defining characteristic.
So I agree completely with: the connotations of "Non-X" are not obvious and consistent
IMO the connotation of non-x in each case is likely to be predetermined by whatever cultural baggage is already attached to the x label.
For example, where I work the term "non-engineer" is used to indicate that employees who are usually ignored are being recognised or included in something. Whereas in the Dilbert cartoon on engineering careers, the question "would I be allowed to date a non-engineer?" suggests a different context.
Comments 1
So I agree completely with:
the connotations of "Non-X" are not obvious and consistent
IMO the connotation of non-x in each case is likely to be predetermined by whatever cultural baggage is already attached to the x label.
For example, where I work the term "non-engineer" is used to indicate that employees who are usually ignored are being recognised or included in something. Whereas in the Dilbert cartoon on engineering careers, the question "would I be allowed to date a non-engineer?" suggests a different context.
Reply
Leave a comment