Tapestries-32 | Who say what now?
What we can learn from the language we use, and why it should concern us.
Words matter. They shape the way we think, and form the backbone of the cultural narratives that shape the communities we live in.
The words we use can illuminate the dominant ways of thinking in a society. Critically, there's a feedback loop: as societies evolve they force us to change the words we use to describe them, and the words we use to describe them in turn lay the groundwork for further change in those societies. If this sounds a bit philosophical, that's because it is.
The most important question we can ask ourselves is what type of world do we want to live in, and the language we employ in considering this question is incredibly consequential. As I pay attention to conversations happening around me, I can't help but think that we're developing a language that's at best confusing, and at worst insidious. In addressing important and complex issues, I think we’re developing a vocabulary that disrespects the variety of potential viewpoints, dictates what is acceptable and unacceptable expression, narrows the boundaries of acceptable thought, and ultimately pushes us further apart.
I know these are strong statements, and may require the drawing of a long bow. So to make the case, here's three examples of words I think require a closer look to understand what they actually say about where our culture is headed. I'm sure these words have been dissected by people more scholarly than me. My analysis is therefore non-technical, because when it comes to words, it's their common usage that's most important. I’ll then finish the piece by considering what our language truly reveals about our problems.
Let's take a look.
#1 "Misinformation"
I struggle to go a day or two without hearing or seeing the word "misinformation" in a headline. But what does it actually mean? I'm comfortable with the concept of "information", which is generally held to describe a property of something that conveys meaning or instruction. So does that mean that "misinformation" is something that conveys the wrong meaning or instruction?
It feels like the word "misinformation" is being used to describe people or things that convey messages with a meaning that is either "wrong" or "misleading". Got it. But the approach necessarily implies that there is a "right" meaning or interpretation, or that there is some objective truth in the matter. And as a citizen of the early 2020s, the longest decade in human history to-date, I don't need to tell you that finding truth in a complex and chaotic world is quite hard.
"Misinformation" has apparently spread—both as a word and as a concept—faster than COVID. There are indeed actors in the corporate, security and political realms who are motivated to spread lies in pursuit of self-interested objectives, and are adept at doing so through increasingly complex communication channels. Trump did so in his undermining of US election integrity, the Chinese did so in their suppression of early COVID developments, and opportunistic crooks did so in selling COVID "cures" to the unwitting.
Intentionally sharing misleading information is therefore a real thing and does occur in clear but limited instances. But this reality is a far cry from necessitating the creation of a concept—"misinformation"—that can be used to smear and undermine any message deemed outside of approved narratives as defined by an increasingly concentrated and ideologically homogeneous group of people in Silicon Valley, New York and Washington DC. And this is the crux of the problem: the creation of the concept and the ensuing battle against it means the gatekeepers of our information universes—tech companies, the media and politicians—are now empowered to determine which types of information are acceptable, and which are not.
So what does this word tell us about our world? It tells us there are "right" bits of information, and "wrong" bits of information. And by extension, "right" ways of thinking, and "wrong" ways of thinking.
#2 "Safe"
It seems like the word "safe" is being stretched to address a growing range of circumstances. To be "safe" generally means to be protected from some harm. And as the categories of "harm" grow, so do the situations in which "safety" is invoked as the reason for demanding some sort of action.
In mid-2020, with protests raging across the country, the New York Times ran an op-ed from Tom Cotton, an Arkansas senator, that argued federal troops should be used to quell the protests. It was an offensive, arguably flawed and generally poor argument, but one he's entitled to and one the paper of record is entitled to publish as a matter of public discourse and diversity of opinion.
The response from New York Times staff was explosive, and resulted in the firing of the editorial section editor, a highly-regarded and well-liked member of staff. Interestingly, the group pushing for his ouster "didn't just say that the op-ed was wrong and shouldn't have been published. They stated directly that publishing it undermined their personal safety."
This is an example of the weaponizing of "safety". The publishing of a bad-take arguably did not impact staffers personal safety. But cloaking their concern in terms of "safety" created a situation where management was forced to respond given safety is rightly considered sacrosanct. It is but one example of a trend being seen across workplaces.
What do I take from the use of "safety" in this context? I think we are rightly and belatedly addressing historical injustices. But we're creating a world where the dividing line is between the “oppressed” and the “oppressors”, however they’re both defined. A world defined in these terms (1) makes protection and safety primary virtues, (2) requires a broadening of the definitions of harm, and (3) compels us to somehow make spaces "safe".
I understand some of the merits of the approach, but it’s impossible to argue that it’s made it increasingly hard to voice unpopular opinions in certain settings, or god forbid, disagree. “Safe” and “opinions” should occupy different conceptual universes, but they’re being squeezed together with predictably strange results.
#3 “-phobe”
There are lots of "-phobes" out there. Transphobes and xenophobes are two that jump to mind. If one expresses opposition to a particular viewpoint on certain issues, they're in danger of being labeled of being a -phobe. The use of a medical suffix is interesting. Per Michael Lind in The New Class War:
"The purpose of describing political adversaries as “-phobes" is to medicalize politics and treat differing viewpoints as evidence of mental and emotional disorders”.
I found this illuminating. The topics these phobias are assigned within, at least in the examples I've given, are really complex. Transgender rights and immigration policies are two areas that require deep and thoughtful consideration to ensure we address historical wrongs and treat fellow human beings with dignity. But again, that's a far cry from deeming any question (not even opposition) as worthy of a derogatory label. I wrote a few years ago that this type of labelling is incredibly damaging, and the passage of time has only strengthened this view:
"The more corrosive impact of labelling is the chilling effect it has on honest and frank discussion. The threat of being slapped with a derogatory label is a strong disincentive to stop people raising even mildly non-politically correct opinions. It is an example of ‘groupthink’. It has created an environment where we are unable to acknowledge that there are competing interests at hand in every complex issue we address".
What to take from this? I think the use of a label that implies some sort of medical deficiency speaks to the disingenuous motives of those using the labels. For them, ideological purity trumps nuance, complexity and progress. Ultimately, some people are more interested in being “right” than actually changing minds.
The real problems we face
If you read a dark undertone in this piece, it's not by accident. A consistent conclusion from the examples used above is that there's a narrowing of acceptable expression, and therefore acceptable thinking. I find this very concerning. I fear some may read this piece and feel that some of its positions are "problematic" (another treasure of the modern lexicon). Or maybe they won't. But the fact I’m apprehensive is part of the problem.
The use of language as described above is part of a broader problem I can’t stop thinking about. I cannot escape the conclusion that our cultural moment, and the words and concepts we use to describe it, is dripping in arrogance and inauthenticity. There is a fundamental unwillingness on the part of our culture’s elites—in technology, media and politics—to talk in plain english, and an irrepressible need to abstract every human experience into a broader cultural narrative. And because these groups tend to be dominated by progressively-minded cohorts, their flavor—and therefore our dominant narratives—over-index progressive views.
The following suggestion, one I’m sympathetic to, partially explains why this may be the case:
“the new national oligarchy changes the codes and the passwords every six months or so, and notifies its members through the universities and the prestige media and Twitter”.
This spoke to me with a clear message. It helped me understand that the most important thing that may be dividing us is not the ideological difference between the left and right, but instead, that there’s a “conversation” in a truly foreign language being moderated by an elite that’s entirely out of touch with reality.
“Polarization” is a word drilled into us to describe the situation whereby those on the left and right of the political spectrum occupy different factual universes. In some ways they do, and I’m not suggesting we’re a few beers and a Wonderwall around the campfire away from solving all our issues. But in many ways the discontent fueling the anger and angst on both “sides” emanates from the same place: a deeply held view that cultural elites have consistently tilted the tables against them.
The real problems we face as a society are not the ones we’ve invented language to describe. The real problem is how we disrespect the views of those who differ from us. As someone who lives in one of these cultural elites, I find the way we talk about about our world, and each other, gross. Despite the desire for “progress”, I can guarantee the quest is headed in the wrong direction. I know this because as a progressively-minded person, it’s pushing me away. It doesn’t take a sociologist to figure out what it’s doing to those with more conservative views.
Bringing it together
I believe individual sovereignty is sacrosanct. We are entitled to think what we think, and should feel comfortable expressing those views in good faith amongst a circle of people that gives us the benefit of the doubt and the space to be wrong. More than ever, we need the respect of individual dignity to be our guiding light.
I think the language we use is as good a signal as any to take the temperature of the cultural moment. As I survey the language we use and listen to the conversations amongst peers, I feel we are describing a reality in words and terms that do more to obscure than to facilitate progress. The tenor of these conversations, and the sentiments of the words we use, make me concerned that their logical conclusions are a narrowing of what’s considered acceptable opinion or thought. And for me, waiting for the thought police to enforce stricter thinking norms is not an option.
The issues we are dealing with today are complex. But we are ultimately talking about issues that relate to the human condition, something everybody can fundamentally appreciate through the faculty of empathy. When the boundaries of acceptable thinking and speech are constantly narrowed—either by cultural norms and/or enforcement by an oligarchic elite—we fundamentally disrespect a person’s ability to comprehend, and drive everybody further apart. It's both arrogant and flawed.
"Safe" spaces are not spaces free from difficult conversations. We need spaces that permit a difference of opinions, whether good or bad, and these spaces require a language that acknowledges that disagreement is a legitimate position. Perversely, we come to these “safe” spaces locked and loaded, just waiting for a “trigger” to allow us to shoot from the hip in what’s becoming a circular firing squad. Life is hard enough, and the need to be “armed” at all times is exhausting. If we don't have the space for expression or mistakes, and couch our spaces in terms that invoke conflict and fear, then in time, truly nothing will be "safe".
These pieces are intended to be prompts for discussion, so please hit ‘reply’ on the email or hit me up elsewhere for a chat. I’d love to hear what you think.
Photo by Sean Benesh on Unsplash