Re: ‘Anglo-Saxon’: Open Letter to the Institute for Medieval Studies, University of Leeds
Dear University of Leeds Institute for Medieval Studies,
We, undersigned postgraduate students of the IMS and affiliate institutions, are writing to request that the IMS makes its position clear on the use of the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ in both academic scholarship and public discourse.
As you may be aware, the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’, though only used in a handful of specific contexts in contemporary sources in the tenth and eleventh centuries, has been widely utilised as an ethnonym in historical scholarship since the seventeenth century to refer to the people, culture, language and period in England from the sixth century until the Norman conquest. This ethnonym developed in historiography as a concept intrinsic to the emerging ideologies of colonialism, nationalism, and white racial superiority. Unsurprisingly, given how the term developed in historical scholarship, ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is regularly used in modern contexts as a racial epithet meaning ‘white’, with early medieval English history being regularly utilised by racists and nationalists to construct a false, white supremacist past.
Given the term’s inherent racism, along with its largely anachronistic and inaccurate use, we contend that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is inappropriate and harmful when used in a broad context to denote a specific people or period. The International Society for the Study of Early Medieval England (formerly the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists), changed their name in September 2019 due to the racist connotations of ‘Anglo-Saxon’. We believe that medievalists should move not to use this term uncritically or without context, and we can start within our own department. Professor Catherine Karkov, IMS affiliate, has openly criticised the term. We believe that making this change in terminology is both timely and urgent for many ethical reasons, particularly because there is a lack of diversity in the field of Medieval Studies (and especially in the study of Old English and pre-Norman England). The need to both diversify and decolonise medieval studies is crucial to the field’s ongoing relevance.
Scholars who have publicly criticised the term, especially those who are people of colour, have experienced a pushback that has included racist abuse, threats and targeting by white supremacist groups and English nationalists. They have been told that the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ period is not their history to study, and they have been treated as unqualified to speak on this issue, not only by fringe racists but also by some colleagues within the field. The extreme pushback by those who are devoted to maintaining the idea of an ‘Anglo-Saxon’ period and ethnicity should only serve as a demonstration of how necessary it is to update our terminology.
We hope that the IMS will make a commitment to not only cease use of this term in its communications and promotions, but also make a public statement on why they have made this decision and what is at stake. It is imperative that we make all necessary changes to combat white supremacy in medieval studies. Leeds is a leading institution in thoughts and ideas and a public statement would position us as front runners committed to forward-thinking and ethical scholarship.
We understand that it is not the department’s role to intervene in the language use of individual scholars or students. We also understand that there is a large volume of valuable past work that uses the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ that simply cannot and should not be dismissed. We recognise that in certain contexts, such as in analysis of royal charters, discussion of the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ is both appropriate and useful.
As students in the IMS, we sincerely hope that our institution is one that is devoted to inclusivity and accuracy and will lead by example. If we are to take a principled stance on the use of terminology in the name of both inclusivity and more precise scholarship, the most effective way we can do this is by making a public statement on the issue. Many organisations and university departments have changed their terminology (for example, Birmingham, Nottingham, Chicago, Stanford, Penn State and numerous others) while failing to adopt a clear and public stance. This risks creating a false public perception about the continuing use of out-of-date terminology, and contributes to the growing threat of white supremacy that continues to make both our colleagues of colour and their allies unsafe.
Interrogating and updating the language we use and the ideas we promote is key to accurate and relevant scholarship. Like we have side-lined or problematised misleading terms like ‘the Dark Ages’, ‘oriental’, and ‘the Feudal System’ in favour of more accurate and inclusive language, we too should look to bring ‘Anglo-Saxon’ into its proper critical context. If we wish our actions to have a wider impact, we must be willing to take a firm and public stance.
As students of Medieval Studies, this field is our future and we are the future of the field. We hope that you will consider this letter carefully and we look forward to your response.
Signed:
Florence Scott, PhD in Medieval Studies
Grace Pesticcio, PhD in Medieval Studies
Allison Emond, PhD in Medieval Studies
George Beckett, MA in Medieval Studies
Emma Paley, MA in Medieval Studies
Erek Lively, MA in Medieval Studies
Charles Roe, PhD in English Literature
Elizabeth Champion, MA in Medieval Studies
Holly Dempster-Edwards, MA in Medieval Studies
Ilya Maude, MA in Social and Cultural History
Sophie Clayton, MA in Medieval Studies
Kyly Walker, PhD in Medieval Studies
Thomas Shepherd, MA in Medieval Studies
Samuel Bradley, PhD in Medieval Studies
Harriet Broadbent, MA in Medieval Studies
Hannah MacKenzie, PhD in Medieval Studies
Elsa MacDonald, PhD in Medieval Studies
James McHale, MA in Medieval Studies