The dangers of “softening language”
Photo by AbsolutVision / Unsplash
In 2020, I was hired to advise a national news organization on how to debias their language.
One point I made repeatedly was to avoid what I call “softening language.” This is where you use a “softer” word, which then brings with it gentler semantic framing and entailments.
For example, Ghislaine Maxwell is often described as “sourcing” girls who were “abused.” This softening language does not accurately frame her (alleged) crimes the way “sex trafficking” and “raped” does. It makes her actions seem less intense, less concrete, less horrible.
Since my project took place in the summer of 2020, I also spent a good amount of time covering the double standard for reporting on “protests” and “riots.” And the standard media resistance to saying “terrorism” when the terrorists are white.
Unfortunately, the news organization didn’t do a great job with uptake. I wasn't surprised, though, since my training and recommendations were at odds with a lifetime of cultural programming on how to talk about the world. Part of our social contract is upholding the status quo. It can take a surprising amount of effort to go against the prevailing conversational current.
And it can be difficult and uncomfortable to talk frankly about bad things. Especially when they are done by people with power. (This includes political power, organizational power, and social power.)
---
There has been a lot of softening language used to describe Wednesday’s violent attack in DC. Starting with reporters hanging out in the “crowd” and getting human interest stories. And moving through the attack, its aftermath, and its analysis.
But it is important – really, extremely important – to use appropriate terminology when describing people's actions. It's a necessary precursor to holding people accountable.
The terminology doesn’t have to be exaggerated. Just accurate.
For example, in this case, saying “protests” and “protestors” is inappropriately softened. Better to say “armed insurrection” and “domestic terrorists.”
And calling the people involved in Wednesday's violence simply “Trump supporters” is again too soft. Better to say “extremists incited to violence by Trump” and “violent white supremacists.”
---
The dangerous patterns of behavior that play out on the national stage usually have exact parallels in the workplace. Softening language, and the dangers it presents, is one of them.
I talk to people all the time about their problematic experiences at work. My database of examples is enormous. And includes these kinds of softening language:
A woman who has been sexually harassed by her co-workers is told, “Well, boys will be boys.”
A Black employee who has been forced to listen to pervasive racist jokes and comments by his white and Asian co-workers is told, “You need to cut them some slack. They're just so young! They don't know any better.”
Employees whose manager is so toxic that they frequently use their lunch breaks to walk around the parking lot and cry are told, “She just has high expectations for her reports.”
Softening language is often used to humanize wrongdoers, and shift the focus from their harmful impact to compassion for their experience. It is a subtle mechanism to maintain current power structures and avoid accountability.
So keep an eye out for softening language at work. If you're looking to make your workplace culture better, accurately naming problems – using words at the appropriate level of strength – is absolutely central.
Copyright 2021 © Worthwhile Research & Consulting.
Industry-leading inclusive language expert Suzanne Wertheim facilitates in-person and virtual inclusive language trainings, as well as offering empowering and educational inclusive language keynotes.