The Language Divide
Which side chooses words that exclude?
"Language is political. That’s why you get a reaction from people when you use certain words." – Stormzy
Languages and Dialects
It is a truth universally acknowledged1…that language changes over time.
“Woll” becomes “will” (but we get stuck with “won’t). Thou becomes you. Latin becomes French (and so on).
Geographical differences also give rise to wholly new dialects. Australians, Englishmen, and Americans can sometimes scarcely understand each other (though it is grounds for endless humor to play with the miscommunications that arise around “fries,” “chips,” “crisps,” “biscuits,” etc.).
Culture, unsurprisingly, affects language, too. Mexican Americans speak an elaborate mixed dialect known as Spanglish. Black Americans have long had their own syntax and vernacular (the name for which has been disputed over the years), but it is essentially a dialect unto itself. Though the terms and phrases do often find their way into mainstream English, after a while. Ten to one the “new cool word” your kids just taught you is a term the Black community has been using for over a decade.
But what about when we share the same time, place, and cultural background…but somehow our words mean different things? What about when we assume what someone means and we’re drastically wrong? What about when arguments arise due to our misunderstandings? Culture wars? And a bitter political divide that leads to a standstill in passing any meaningful legislation?
Partisan Division - Dialects of Differing Ideologies
Being a bit of a language nerd, this is a topic I’ve been excited to write about for a while. And one that I feel connects, inextricably, to topics of culture, science, law, and politics.
In the U.S., our ideological and political divide results in a completely different set of words and phrases depending on what “side” you’re on. Almost like a dialect of its own. We recognize it when we hear it. We assume what a person believes based on the words they choose, and we assume the meaning they’re intending based on our perception of their politics. An extension of our innate human tendency towards tribalism, we can very easily determine who is “us” vs. who is “them” as soon as we’ve heard how they speak about certain topics.
The result is a maddening, incendiary communication breakdown where - everyone is self-righteously angry about what the other side is saying when - sometimes we don’t even mean the same thing. (Or, sometimes we do, we’re just talking past each other with completely different words, all the while describing the same issues).
Political Correctness - The Good, The Bad, (…and The Ugly, Reframed)
I’m old enough to remember “Political Correctness” being a bit of the “new, hot thing” - ripe for satire. And it made its way into middle school humor - short kids would wear T-shirts declaring “Vertically Challenged.”
I also lived long enough to see the rise and fall of the “R” word (and good riddance).
That’s the thing about “PC” language, in its best application, it was about considering the impact of language - eliminating some downright derogatory terms, and giving folks a fair shot. Not setting them up for failure by having this subtle bullying follow them everywhere they went and, inevitably, affect people’s perception of them. Maybe a person who mattered to giving them a job or some other opportunity.
But at its worst, PC language (being ultimately about politics) was also often about shifting power. Dressing up the language, softening it, or reframing who is the victim, who is the victor, and where the blame lies. Politicians spoke of “collateral damage” when they really meant “civilian death.” Employers started calling their subordinates “associates” instead of “workers.” And even things like relabeling “torture” to something like “enhanced interrogation.”
Naturally, there were people that developed a deep skepticism for this “softening” or “polishing up” of things that are gnarly and ugly. Or, at the least, unsavory. "Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable." – George Orwell.
Academic Language - Insular Jargon is Fine in a Scientific Journal, but not in Politics or Everyday Life
In another dichotomy turned dialectal divide - the language of academia is its own whole world. Elite scholars in their ivory towers come off as pompous, intentionally confusing, and exclusionary when they use terminology like “Temporalities and Risk Anticipation” and “Phenotypic Plasticity and Evolutionary Dynamics.” In reality, papers and articles with these kinds of titles are not written for the general public, and in academia (as in law) it pays to be precise.
The faux pas comes when academics and legal scholars let this language leak into their everyday conversations. They’re so used to a community where “we all know what we mean” that they forget, or neglect to consider, that - in a mixed crowd we don’t all know what you mean!
I’ve even been guilty of this, myself. To those who have gotten frustrated with my “big-word-itis” I’ve explained: “But I have the words. And they mean what I’m trying to say. So why wouldn’t I use them?!? I’m not trying to be uppity or ‘sound smart.’ These words are just within my reach and, if it gets at the precise meaning I’m trying to convey better than any other word - it feels more accurate to use it!”
When these overly academic, though precise, terms make their way into public discourse around politics, it can seem to have the same intention (and at least the same effect) as euphemistic, overly “PC” language: You’re dressing up an idea with big words instead of just saying what you mean! Why not just be straightforward and talk like a “real person”? Is this person trying to confuse me? Trying to exclude me? What are they trying to hide with this language?
And I’ll even go so far as to say: Liberals take it too far sometimes. You’ve heard of the “purity culture” of the church and the litmus tests of morality that end up ostracizing and demonizing regular people instead of actually inviting people into the community as the flawed humans that they are.
Well, modern liberal culture has its own version of this. A self-righteous, moral superiority that says, “You’re not using the right words, and so you must be a terrible person.”
Anti-“Woke” Sentiments - Embracing being “Deplorable”
Is it any surprise then, that a strong “anti-woke” sentiment arose, fueled not just by a rejection of progressive ideas, but as an emotional response to feelings of being vilified, talked down to, and shut out of the conversation?2
And, in this context, there emerged a man who “Tells it like it is.”
Now, the critique of right-leaning language is that, though claiming to just “speak like real people,” their words often strip language down to its most base and derogatory forms. They often carelessly oversimplify and wind up being “casually cruel in the name of being honest.”3 The intent to be blunt is paired with an objective to get an emotional response - towards their own political ends, of course.
As always, Jill Lepore has a few impressively relevant historic quotes about the choice of blunt, emotional language for the sake of politics. From a few PR pundits in the mid 20th century:
Never explain anything. “The more you have to explain, the more difficult it is to win support.” “Words that lean on the mind are no good, they must dent it.” - Baxter; “A wall goes up when you try to make Mr. and Mrs. Average American Citizen work or think.” - Whitaker (Lepore, p. 451; emphasis added)4
The political stances of the right are often served in their “straight talk” approach. Their word choice can even be cleverly veiled euphemisms in their own way, and sometimes are even intentionally criminalizing and cruel.
The Bottom Line - To Translate in Good Faith
The different dialects of the political left and right in the U.S. don’t merely reflect (and serve) each side's values and political goals - they create an emotional response in the listener. Whether it is of vehement agreement or righteous disagreement. Overall the goal is rage, defensiveness, discomfort, and even hatred of “the other side.” “They’re trying so hard to be ‘woke,’ they’re making up words and intentionally misleading people.” Or, “They’re so lazy and ‘plain-speaking’ that they’re using derogatory language and are willfully ignorant of what the more appropriate term would be.”
And, I’ll grant you, sometimes the worst of the worst is true about that person on the other side whose language has made you so angry. No amount of “better words” would have made Hitler a saint or Stalin a harmless butterfly.
But…for all the people I’ve talked to across this wide and beautiful country - most people are not only more complicated than you expect, but will at least partially meet you where you’re at if you frame your argument in a way that they will understand. I read an article one time about how using the same reasons that convinced you is not the best way to convince others. You must consider their values, and draw on their logic. Each side’s political language seeks to do that, but we have to be better about being translators.
Language does and must evolve. Words have an impact. Pejorative terms and overly complicated terminology should not be used to ostracize and exclude people.
The right frames their speech as “plain talk” to signal authenticity, and while seen as clarifying to some, it is brutal or even cruel to others.
The left’s values-driven language is seen as precise and inclusive, but can come across as elitist, out-of-touch, and an over-policing of words to signal their own virtue and diminish others’.
What’s a word you’ve heard recently that you didn’t understand when you first heard it? Or one that you feel has a different meaning depending on who uses it?
In a future post I may put together a list or table of words and phrases that we use and mean different things.
Final question: How would you define “freedom”?
It was only a matter of time before I dropped a Jane Austen reference.
I’ve seen and heard from at least a few white men who felt like the Democratic Party had no place for them and didn’t even want them.
Again, only a matter of time before Taylor Swift lyrics found their way into my writing.
These Truths by Jill Lepore