Communication Strategy In These Times
Recently, a group called The Third Way put out a memo making the argument that Democrats should stop using certain words and phrases if they want to start winning again. I am of two minds when faced with this argument. On the one hand, absolutely the so-called left has used (and sometimes misused) language in a way that puts off the very people who would otherwise be in agreement with our overall and broader ideals. On the other hand, following this group’s advice feels like “winning” by giving in.
But are those the only two ways of looking at it? Probably not. Likely not. And insisting on one or the other does little to move us forward. So, I kept reading.
The Third Way
The Third Way describes itself as a “national think tank and advocacy organization that champions moderate policy and political ideas. Our work on the center left acts as a critical bulwark against political extremism.”
That last part- political extremism- resonates with me. And, in my work, I am driven by a desire to work against political extremism.
In my professional and personal experience, most people enjoy diversity, believe in inclusion, and support equity… given some understanding of what it means. And I’m fortunate to be able to explain these terms and have really rich conversations with people and teams and organizations.
So, what are some of the terms?
- Violence (as in environment violence),
- Privilege,
- Dialoguing,
- Safe space,
- Centering,
- Triggering,
- Cultural appropriation,
- Systems of oppression,
- Existential threat,
- Small ‘d’ democracy,
- Unhoused,
- Stakeholders,
- Housing or food insecurity….
You get the point.
And this is just one list from one organization.
DEI Ideals
So many organizations – those who are sticking with DEI ideals. – are scrubbing their websites and external communications based on some list of words we should all stay away from. Slow down.
First, if the work of your organization has anything to do with “helping others”, you likely face some risk, anyway because these threats are aimed at the very people and communities you seek to support. That’s evidenced by the terms listed.
Second, your backing down doesn’t actually help people; it leaves them and your organization more vulnerable, not less.
But that’s not to say we all out dismiss the idea of reevaluating language. In fact, even before this particular moment, I worked with clients to examine language and use it strategically. How do we have a conversation about any positive change in operations without talking about an organization’s stakeholders? At the same time, as a consultant who spends of lot of time talking about how we show up and support those who are most vulnerable, I don’t actually use a lot of these terms regularly. I can’t tell you the last time I said “Heuristic”, “birthing person”, or “minoritized communities”. And even when I talk about privilege, Latinx, BIPOC, or LGBTQIIA+, I don’t do it without having offered not just definitions but also context. Because that’s what it means to communicate. There’s no point in saying a thing to another person who doesn’t understand what you’re saying. And so often we’re having conversations and not speaking the same language. Who are we helping and supporting when we do that?
So, yes, examine your language. Consider your audience. That’s strategy.
An all out elimination of these terms is capitulating. When we do that, we put everyone at risk.