Embedded Files
Note this guide is addressed to New Harbinger authors, but it'll be useful to copy editors and proofreaders too, and in-house editors rely on it as well.
This style guide reflects the values of New Harbinger Publications and our commitment to making our books inclusive of our diverse readership in terms of race, sexuality and gender, body type, age, ability, and more. Our goal is to emphasize the importance of listening to members of communities and identity groups when it comes to representation and terminology and to ensure we remain committed to using affirming and ethical language in our books.
The conversation around affirming and ethical language is an evolving one. Our policies may change as the culture changes. We invite candid conversation about the topics in this style guide. We also ask authors to trust our experience and our best intentions for them and their books in the advice we offer and the editorial decisions we make.
Cultural Humility
Many psychological resources talk about cultural competence: the ability to understand, appreciate and interact with people from cultures or belief systems different from one’s own. This is an eminently laudable aim, and the need for cultural competency in the treatment of mental health is something we take seriously. At the same time, in practice, cultural competency can lead some clinicians to inadvertently center themselves in their zeal to help their clients.
At NHP, we try to focus above all on cultural humility. In the health care context, cultural humility is defined as a process of self-reflection and self-critique one engages in to learn and know more about not just another’s culture, but one’s own beliefs and identities. At NHP, we also consider “humility” to imply a stance in which it’s understood that none of us can speak for another’s experience exactly. The goal then becomes to approach others’ stories delicately, with curiosity and nonjudgment, and to keep in mind that norms and conventions for cultural sensitivity will change as the culture changes. This guide has been created with cultural humility in mind. It recognizes the importance of self-reflection on the parts of clinicians, self-help authors, and editors alike, and the importance of listening to the members of different identity groups when it comes to how they wish to be seen and represented.
Diversity in Examples and Case Stories
When writing example scenarios or case stories, it is important to make diversity and inclusion primary aims structuring your writing. However, we have found that being too labored with well-intentioned gestures at inclusivity can backfire; it can end up putting a spotlight on the very people you are trying to include, which they may find no less alienating than the alternative.
Here are some tips to help you craft truly diverse and inclusive examples in your book.
Use diverse names, genders, and ages (when appropriate) of characters in case stories.
But don’t force it. Diversifying case stories can and should be subtle. You are welcome to include the occasional detail about some aspect of a person’s identity if it’s relevant. Keeping these details explicitly relevant is key. Irrelevant details regarding race, gender, sexuality, body size, or ability can result in text that reads as insincere, like it’s trying too hard to appeal or to signal how inclusive it is rather than letting people of all kinds just be, and be welcomed, as they are.
The most successfully inclusive books are usually the most naturally diverse. So, consider basing the examples on real people you have worked with (avoiding specific identifying details, of course).
Start with the needs of your audience. Your readership will be diverse, so write to them. If you keep this perspective in mind, it will be easier to notice when you have made one group a default standard in a way that may leave other readers feeling left out.
Writing about Race Inclusively and Sensitively
The AP Guide to Race-Related Reporting is a valuable resource and extensive guide to writing on issues of race: https://www.apstylebook.com/race-related-coverage. There, you will find a guide to terminology with important information and examples.
As the AP guide points out, consider carefully when deciding whether to identify people by race. Often, it is an irrelevant factor and drawing unnecessary attention to someone’s race or ethnicity can be interpreted as bigotry.
That said, in writing about race, new questions continually arise and often need individualized attention. If you have any questions or concerns about writing on this topic, please reach out to the coordinating editor for your book.
Sexuality- and Gender-Inclusive Writing
Every effort should be made to be inclusive of all sexualities and genders. This includes incorporating examples and case stories of people with varying identities when appropriate. It is important to avoid conflation of sex assigned at birth with gender or universalizing claims based on gender or biological sex.
It’s also important to be specific and intentional when using modified words to demonstrate inclusivity, and every effort should be made not to appropriate such language or abstract it from its original context. For example, we recommend using “women” rather than “womxn,” with the understanding that all women are included in the original word. Similarly, we recommend against using “folx” in a context that is not explicitly reflecting the QTPOC community in which that term originated. (For more guidance on the rationale for this, see for example https://radicalcopyeditor.com/2016/09/12/folx/.)
Following is specific guidance about pronoun style in New Harbinger books.
Gendered Pronouns
New Harbinger encourages use of the singular "they" to refer to people of unspecified gender (for example, when referring to a hypothetical “client” or to a single client in the abstract as well as people who do not identify with a binary gendered pronoun).
Note the use of they/them does not preclude the use of he/him or she/her to denote a single nonspecific person.
Note that if you are referring to a transgender person who uses binary pronouns, it is essential to use their pronouns.
Note also that plural forms of verbs are used with they/them even when the pronoun denotes a singular person. (Singular forms may apply to the same person when that person is named.)
For the reflexive pronoun in sentences using the singular they, use “themself.” (For instance, “The best way to figure out a person's gender identity is to ask and listen to what they say about themself.”)
Chicago suggests striving for a balance between “he/him” and “she/her” when referring to nonspecific persons, and we encourage you to add "they/them" to this mix--or, again, to use the singular "they" throughout, if that's what you prefer. Generally speaking, the goal should be to avoid drawing the reader's attention to the mechanics of gender and pronouns. (That is why we do not use slashed constructions like “his/her/their” or “s/he/they.”)
In many cases, you may be able to revise to avoid pronouns entirely. For instance, “Make sure your client understands the homework before they leave the session” could be revised to “Make sure your client understands the homework before leaving the session.” You might also consider the possibility of editing to write about people in the plural. For instance, “The shy person often feels compelled to hide their feelings from others” could be revised to “Shy people often feel compelled to hide their feelings from others.”
Note it's not essential to alternate strictly between pronouns, especially if any particular context makes a specific gender an obvious choice. It's also not necessary to end up with an equal balance, if the topic being discussed tends to apply more to one gender than others. For instance, in a book about a disorder that is twice as prevalent in women than the rest of the population, it's fine for there to be more instances of she/her pronouns generally (though you'll want to be careful not to reinforce a gender binary in a way that’s unsubtle or unnecessary; see the next section for details). When neither context nor prevalence are a concern and you are more or less alternating male, female, and nonbinary pronouns, the change can be made from one instance, section, or chapter to the next—whichever you think will be the least distracting to the reader.
Broad Discussions of Gender Identity and Socialization
Sometimes you may wish to discuss the ways people are typically socialized based on their perceived gender identities, or the particular ways they express their gender identities—especially as this socialization can contribute to the presentation or incidence of a particular clinical diagnosis. In such instances, it’s best to avoid essentializing language that relies on “men” and “women,” as this presumes gender is a binary of “male” and “female.” Instead, you might use language that makes it clear that “masculinity” and “femininity” are broad binary poles that can structure either our behavior or the ways others treat us--and you can use language that makes it clear that gender is not in fact the binary it’s often characterized as being.
For instance, in a sentence that reads “Women are twice as likely as men to experience major depression,” you might opt to acknowledge directly that the terms you’re using here are binary ones that do not accurately capture all of human experience, with something like “The data that’s been gathered suggests that women are twice as likely as men to experience major depression. These are binary terms that don’t encompass all of human experience, but…”). Or, you might consider whether providing such data about prevalence is actually useful for your book’s reader. Sometimes it can be better to focus on psychoeducation about symptoms and other aspects of the reader’s direct experience of the condition you’re writing about.
Another point to keep in mind is to make it clear you’re not conflating gender socialization (often binary and essentialist) with gender identity. For instance, consider the sentence “How we’re socialized according to our gender can play a role in how regulated or dysregulated we become.” Here, you might revise to “How we’re socialized according to our perceived gender can play a role in how regulated or dysregulated we become,” to acknowledge the existence and effects of binary and essentialist models of gender without reinforcing that binary.
This too is an evolving area of conversation—and one that can become especially fraught in the context of trans and nonbinary experiences, which should not be reduced to binary terms. So, please direct any specific questions you have about how best to discuss gender identity and socialization to your NH editor. We’re aware that often, these matters are best settled case by case rather than with one-size-fits-all rules.
Ultimately, while inclusivity and diversity should be the aim, it’s important to be sensitive as to how well-intentioned gestures of inclusivity will land with readers. Any references made to a person’s sexuality should be relevant to the text.
If you have further questions not addressed in this guide, a great resource for writing for and about LGBTQ people is the GLAAD Media Reference Guide: https://www.glaad.org/reference. Here you will find a thorough list of terms and definitions that can be useful.
Inclusivity of Body Type, Age, and Ability
The most important factor in being inclusive in these areas is to seek out what particular groups of people use to describe themselves and follow their lead. Of course, opinions on this will vary, and norms for language will continue to shift. But here are some general points to keep in mind when discussing body type, ability, and age.
Body type (avoiding anti-fat bias and weight stigma):
Refrain from mentioning a person’s size unnecessarily.
Avoid using “fat” as a negative descriptor (note that the term “fat” may be used by an individual as a neutral descriptor they use to describe themself).
Be particularly careful with examples of negative thoughts or problematic cognitions that reference a person’s feelings about their size, even if you intend to make it clear those are examples of something you want the reader to consider in service of a psychological mechanism you’re illustrating and not perspectives you endorse.
Ability (avoiding ableist language):
Avoid language that identifies a person with the condition they may be suffering from. For instance, avoid constructions like “bipolar people,” “borderline women,” or “my BPD daughter”; instead, use “people with bipolar disorder,” “women with BPD,” or “my daughter, who has BPD.” In other words, we generally encourage the use of person-first language—which is intended to put “person” before any identifier, to emphasize a person’s humanity.
However, note that person-first language is objected to by many in the disability community who feel that constructions like “a person who is blind” or “people with disabilities” serve to diminish a central fact of their identities and lived experiences. That is, person-first language seems to separate a person from their experience when that same experience is a real and often treasured one. So, when you’re working on books for members of certain communities, like Deaf people or autistic people, it may be legitimate, or even better, to use “identity-first” language like “a blind person,” “an autistic person,” “the deaf,” or “the disabled,” so as to recognize, affirm, and validate their complete identities—especially if you’re writing directly to a reader who's a member of such a community (rather than writing about them).
Ultimately, when it comes to ability and the need to avoid ableist language: Use your best judgment, be prepared for further discussion of any references you make to ability in your book, and approach your editors with any concerns about this policy you’d like to discuss given what you know of your book’s audience.
Here are some additional links on avoiding ableist language you may find it helpful to consult:
Age (avoiding ageism and writing to your audience):
Always write toward your audience. For instance, if you’re writing a book for teens, don’t go overboard with jokes and humor; that can come off as pandering. And try to avoid overusing exclamation points and other aspects of language that can make your prose skew young and feel faux-ingratiating rather than genuinely so. Write in a way that respects teens’ intelligence and their autonomy.
More significantly, when you’re writing to teens about topics like substance use or sexuality, try to write in ways that respect the fundamental agency and authority that even teens and kids have over their own lives and choices. Ultimately, when it comes to topics like substance use and sexual activity, our goal is to give our readers the information they need to make their own valued choices, with their health, safety, and authenticity in mind, rather than prescribing any particular choices for them in a moralizing or authoritarian way.
On the other end of the spectrum, we ask that you be considerate in the language you use to refer to older adults. Be careful with terms like "seniors," and language that reduces older adults to stereotypes. Always read anything you've written with an eye to how a person who belongs in the group you're writing about would read it; it'll help you anticipate where, say, a joke you intended to be lighthearted may not land as intended.
References to Law Enforcement in New Harbinger Books
For a publisher working in the field of mental health and self-help, it’s inevitable that some of our books will contain references to contact with law enforcement. Special attention should be paid to any references to police or suggestions to the reader to call police. Given the varying impact of police on different communities—including the substantially increased dangers posed to people of color and people with untreated mental illness by police—care should be taken to closely examine if such a suggestion is necessary in the text and how it might be given in a way that’s both effective for the book’s reader and sensitive to the realities of policing in America. If you feel strongly that a mention of police is warranted for a particular topic, please contact your NH editor to discuss.
Derogatory Terms and Hate Speech
An effort should be made to avoid hurtful language whenever possible—even when it’s being used to offer an example of something you're discussing, and you’re taking a clear position that the language in question is negative and not to be used. The very act of reproducing the language can have unintended consequences. At best, it may distract from the larger points you mean to make; at worst, it can be harmful for the reader who encounters it.
A Brief List of Terms
Here’s a short list of terms that often come up in our books and NHP’s positions on them. For more exhaustive treatments of specific terms, see the links to the GLAAD media reference guide and the AP Guide to Race-Related Reporting in the sections above—or direct your questions to your NHP editor.
Black (adj.): Use the capitalized term as an adjective in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense: Black people, Black culture, Black literature, Black studies, Black colleges. Use of the capitalized Black recognizes that language has evolved, along with the common understanding that especially in the United States, the term reflects a shared identity and culture rather than a skin color alone. (Capitalization of “White” is a matter of your discretion—but many authors writing on matters of social justice do find it helpful as a means by which to recognize that “White” is a distinct identity rather than a societal or human norm.)
BIPOC: This term, short for “Black, Indigenous, and People of Color,” has been used increasingly often the past few years by those who feel that the term “people of color” is too generic—that it groups all kinds of nonwhite people together in ways that don’t reflect the unique oppressions faced by Black or Indigenous people. However, there is also an argument that “BIPOC” itself is hierarchizing: that it centers two particular racial groups even when these communities are not at the center of the issue being discussed. Ultimately, NHP allows authors to use “BIPOC” if they strongly prefer that term—particularly if their books are written specifically to an audience of Black or Indigenous people. However, in most cases, we encourage the use of “people of color” as a potentially more capacious term, or reference to specific racial groups as it's relevant to the discussion at hand. Ultimately, our desire is to find a good balance between respect for the reader, on the one hand, and respect for authors’ preferences and their knowledge of their own audience and their audience’s unique needs on the other. And we encourage our authors and editors to bring any questions they have about terminology to us for collaborative resolution.
Cis/cisgender: Refers to a person whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth.
Nonbinary/genderqueer: Terms used by some who experience their gender identity as falling outside the categories of man and woman.
Tribe: Refers to a sovereign political entity, communities sharing a common ancestry, culture or language, and a social group of linked families who may be part of an ethnic group. Avoid using this word as a general term to refer to a group of people with common interests or social connections.
Updating Language in Older Books
As a backlist publisher that’s been around since the 70s, our catalog spans many years—and obviously, norms around inclusive and ethical language have changed pretty radically since we first began publishing. So, editors and authors working on certain New Harbinger projects—like revised editions of books that have long been in print, or “repack” books consisting of selections from previously published books—may find language and references that haven’t aged well, or a selection of names in case studies that no longer accurately reflect the diversity of demographics that a given book is likely to serve.
If you find yourself in this position, we encourage you to follow your instincts when it comes to what to revise and how. You’re also welcome to contact NHP editors for guidance on how best to update language that seems dated or problematic so it’s sufficiently inclusive. And if you’re ever in doubt about this, ask. It’s better to be thorough than to let things pass.
In Conclusion
Ensuring that our books are respectful in their language and accurately reflect human diversity is an ongoing project. We welcome your input and honest discussion of any concerns you may have as we work to make our books the best books possible for their audiences.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse