The English language is full of phrases that have been passed down for generations, many of which to the point where we can no longer recall their origin. Or perhaps we can, but we simply don’t associate the phrase with its origin anymore!
One such phrase is “rule of thumb.” Note that the origin of this phrase is contested among scholars, and I don’t wish to imply that this blog is the be-all, end-all of sources. Rather, I intend to discuss one theory of this phrase’s origin and the consequences of such a history.
First and foremost, many of us likely know that “rule of thumb” today refers to any general principle or guideline based on broad, practical knowledge rather than precise calculations. We might say it’s a good rule of thumb, for example, to tell a friend where you’re eating if you’re going on a first date with someone you met online. In other words, “rule of thumb” simply refers to a technique or thought process that is useful in a given situation!
Historically, however, “rule of thumb” wasn’t always such a broad concept. In the 17th century, English common law reputedly allowed for domestic abuse from the husband to a wife, so long as the stick he used to beat her was no thicker than his thumb. The “rule of thumb,” in other words, was a rule that permitted—even encouraged—domestic violence. Rather gruesome history, right?
As I mentioned, the interpretation of this phrase’s history is not certain; the fact that English common law is based on precedent and not codified law leads to nuance and variability when interpreting centuries-old information. Nonetheless, I think it goes without saying that no one here supports domestic abuse and verbiage that encourages it! Even if “rule of thumb” no longer refers to a law permitting violence against women, that understanding and that history of the term remains. We are left with a choice: we can continue to use phrases like “rule of thumb” that may be rooted in violence, or we can stop using them and in doing so stop the perpetuation of centuries worth of harm.
So, why do I bring this topic up? The reason is simple: I encourage us to question words and phrases that we have heard and been using for years, decades, centuries. If we don’t question accepted language, then we may never become aware of when we are perpetuating harm.
In fact, I have discussed before the importance of questioning our language, because words have tremendous power, and thus being careful about the words we say is one of the simplest and yet also one of the strongest ways we can work toward a brighter, more inclusive world. Some of these terms may have clearly negative origins, such as “slavedriver” and “too many chiefs and not enough Indians” while others may be subtler, such as the possible misogyny in “rule of thumb” and the hidden ableism in phrases like “turn a blind eye to” something. In short, although a word or phrase may have been used for a long time, longevity is no reflection of its respect or inclusion, and it’s up to us to question what we have been conditioned to believe is “acceptable” speech!
I’ll conclude with this: do we want to be part of harmful complacency, or do we want to be part of positive change? Our language will reflect our decision!
Dima Ghawi is the founder of a global talent development company with a primary mission for advancing individuals in leadership. Through keynote speeches, training programs and executive coaching, Dima has empowered thousands of professionals across the globe to expand their leadership potential. In addition, she provides guidance to business executives to develop diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and to implement a multi-year plan for advancing quality leaders from within the organization.
Reach her at DimaGhawi.com and BreakingVases.com.
