The notion of ‘neutral’ or ‘professional’ accent is, arguably, amongst the most persistent illusions of modern society. When referring to clear or intelligent speaking, it is merely the sound of historical power. It is judged not so much on merit, but on closeness to dominance.
The colonial history forms the hierarchies of the world. English, French, and a few other European languages were given the connotations of power, knowledge, and politics. On the other hand, innumerable other languages and speaking styles were positioned as colloquial and less prestigious. The judgments could never be devoid of ideological undertones; they were always a means to manage and control. They eventually became instincts.
This influence of accent persists in the present day. Research has consistently indicated that speakers with a non-dominant accent are considered to be of lesser competence and credibility, even if they are stating the same information. This is not done at a conscious level. It occurs at an unconscious level and has been passed down through institutions and education systems and even the media.
This bias affects opportunity. It determines who gets a job, a promotion, or an invitation to speak; whose ideas are considered serious. Accent becomes a gatekeeper, gliding seamlessly in and out of meaning to filter out sound before it is even considered. It creates a constricted point of view, where authority sounds like home and where unfamiliar sounds are forced to audition for legitimacy.
Yet history complicates such bias. Many of the most influential individuals of the modern period pronounced words in accents that stem from displacement, imperialism, or hybridity. “Even Mahatma Gandhi’s English, replete as it was with the evidence of imperialism, possessed a moral authority that undermined the imperial center itself.” Mandela’s measured tone combines elements of Western jurisprudence and African oratory traditions, thereby eliding categories.
Accent does not diminish intelligence; rather, it speaks to us from history. It speaks to us from geography, from migration, from struggle, from adaptation. In distrust of accented voices, we distrust experience that is not reflected in our cultural norms.
To challenge accent bias, it’s not just a question of tolerance. What’s needed is recalibration – recalibration of what ‘authority’ sounds like, recalibration of listening to go beyond familiarity and to allow meanings to emerge before judgments are made.
In the global conversation, intelligence will never be singular. The future of honest speech passes through the enlargement, and never the contraction, of the hearing. It does not matter that the voices sound different. It matters that the voices are heard openly.