Vox will defend this Monday in Congress a proposition not of law with which it seeks the Government to eliminate the so-called inclusive language from official documents, considering that “annoys” communication and “hinders” the functioning of the Administration, in addition to being a cost to the public coffers.
Those of Santiago Abascal will take this initiative to debate and vote by the Territorial Policy Commission, which seeks that the Executive promote the exclusion of the use of inclusive language “in all official documents emanating from the General Administration of the State and public bodies and public law entities linked or dependent on it “.
In the text, Vox echoes the proposal that, in the same sense, they have promoted in France 60 deputies from the party of the president, Emmanuel Macron, La República en Marcha, and the conservative formation of the Republicans.
The party led by Abascal collects criticism from the Academy of the French Language against inclusive language, and also those made by the Royal Spanish Academy in the report commissioned by the Government on the possibility of adapting the Constitution of 1978.
In the explanatory memorandum, Vox admits that the RAE itself interprets the use of collective nouns of people whether they are masculine – “the Spanish people” – or female – “the Spanish population” -, as well as that of nominal terms that include both sexes in their designation (‘all Spanish people’ instead of ‘all Spanish’).
But then he focuses his entire non-law proposition on disqualifying the use of “unfolding” (the Spanish men and women), defends the use of the generic masculine, alleging its “conceptual necessity” and emphasizes that “the construction of inclusive language attends to reasons that hide a certain ignorance of the rules of the Spanish language”.
Thus, he remarks that inclusive language has, in his opinion, a “ideological base” and resorts to the arguments of the RAE which, among other things, invokes principles of linguistic economics and denies that there is a “direct relationship” between the generalized use of the generic masculine and “cultural androcentrism.”
The generic masculine is “innocuous”
“A use not controlled by stylistic prudence leads to artificial, indigestible and negative speeches for the cause they pursue”, says the RAE, for whom to veto the use of the generic masculine is “criminalize” a grammatical structure, in his opinion, “innocuous” and that, “it has been functioning as an aseptic expression for centuries”.
With these arguments, Vox concludes that inclusive language “hinders the operation of the General State Administration” and highlights that its use “does not coincide with the principles of action of the public administration”, and implies “a failure to respect the principles enshrined in article 103.1 of the Constitution and developed in the Law of the Legal Regime of the Public Sector, as “that of effective service to citizens and of simplicity, clarity and proximity”.
“Rather, far from being an effective instrument at the service of citizens, it represents an obstructive phenomenon in favor of an ideological trend that hinders, annoys and bothers the fluidity of the written or verbal dialogue between sender and receiver,” he adds.
Therefore, it concludes that its incorporation into the administrative language “would not represent a recognition of the evolution of the uses of the Spanish language but an exercise of administrative coercion by imposing on the administered a form of communication decided by a group in a conscious way “.
Eddie is an Australian news reporter with over 9 years in the industry and has published on Forbes and tech crunch.