Words once spoken can never be taken back. This is why awareness about the power of words to cause hurt is important. Yet, words also have the power to convey other emotions like love and respect. Both these powers were in conflict in a recent case in the United Kingdom. A UK tribunal awarded Ilda Esteves, a healthcare worker with the National Health Service, £1,425 as compensation for being called “auntie” by a non-White colleague: Ms Esteves was repeatedly called auntie despite her requests to be addressed by her name. The tribunal deemed this as harassment and agreed that she deserved compensation.
Yet, it would be unfair to dismiss this case as yet another instance of ageism. For it illustrates the deeper tension that arises when language is taken out of a specific cultural context. The term, ‘auntie’, used by Ms Esteves’ Ghanaian colleague, was framed as an offence despite the fact that ‘auntie’ is a respectful form of address in African and Asian societies. In Indian, West African, and Caribbean speech, kinship terms often replace first names, especially for elders. These practices signal regard, social placement, and familiarity. Judging a linguistic expression sans its multiple cultural nuances in a bid to fit it into a framework of acceptable speech or norms comes with risks: such as the flattening of language into uniform normative codes prevalent in and preferred by the Western, Anglophile world.
The trouble — the reality — is that words change meaning depending on culture, context, and relationships. Many societies use descriptors that appear blunt when seen in the light of Western sensibilities. Indians, for instance, frequently refer to complexion, age, or body size in everyday conversation without malicious intent. African and Caribbean communities use familial titles for non-relatives. Even working-class British speech includes teasing and mild insults that function as elements of social bonding. These socio-linguistic practices operate within shared expectations and relational trust but risk being misinterpreted as prejudice, fat-shaming, or ageism when isolated from context. The consequence is a narrowing of permissible speech that fails to distinguish between cruelty and cultural habit. Studies in several countries, including the UK, the United States of America and parts of Europe, suggest that there is significant public discomfort with such language policing.
A balanced approach requires careful distinctions. But this separation is not always easy. Speech that is intended to humiliate must be penalised. Yet law cannot
turn its eyes from the fact that in certain cultures, the use of informal language, teasing, and culturally-rooted expressions function as markers of familiarity, even affection. And the residues of such cultural practices do not disappear with migration. Moreover, the West’s claim of being that enigmatic cultural melting pot would lie
in shreds if it cannot distinguish between intended insult and cultural camaraderie. The challenge is to preserve dignity without erasing cultural registers. A plural society cannot function through a single linguistic standard detached from social context.
