Don’t Be So Language Sensitive

People in poverty alleviation work tend to be very sensitive about word choice. Pick any word in the field, and you’ll find a practitioner who has objections to its use. “Poor people,” “mentor,” “nonprofit,” “charity,” and even the phrase “poverty alleviation”—everyone has some reason for not using one of them. While there are understandable reasons for language sensitivity, being overly divided on language creates the risk that we won’t be able to partner effectively with other organizations simply because their buzzwords are different from ours. By unpacking the language differences’ root causes, we can separate the substantive from the semantic and overcome artificial barriers to collaboration.

Cross-cultural challenges

Very few anti-poverty programs are run exclusively by people currently in poverty. Consequently, we are constantly building bridges to people of different socio-economic classes, who are often of different races or nationalities as well. Since different groups use different words, a term like “ghetto” might be used by middle-class people as a neutral description of a rough part of town, but might be perceived by residents as an intentional insult. Making matters more tense, many people in poverty have been judged unfairly (people might have wrongly assumed they were drug users, dirty, or violent), resulting in their becoming more sensitive potentially judgemental language. 

We should take care not to cause unnecessary offense to those we serve, but we shouldn’t simply assume which terms cause offense and which don’t. After healthy relationships with people whom you serve have been built, ask questions about what terms do or do not cause offense. The answers you get may be surprising.

The “euphemism treadmill” 

When a concept is inherently unpleasant in some way, it is often referred to by a euphemism—a softening of negative language to make it seem less harsh. However, that softened language inevitably becomes tainted by the thing it describes, and eventually a new euphemism is needed. This is why terms for mental illness evolve so quickly. At one point in history, words like “imbecile” and “moron” weren’t insults; they were polite or technical terms that eventually became distasteful due to their association with mental illness. If you were reading this article in the year 2040, it is likely that the term “mentally ill” could be out of fashion. The “chronically homeless” were once referred to as vagrants and more recently referred to as “unhoused people.”

While turns of phrase may evolve, one thing is constant, we should endeavor to reserve judgment against people who still use terms that are falling out of favor. Even if someone uses the most cutting-edge terms, get ready, those terms will fall off of the treadmill someday as well.

Separation from circumstantial identifiers

This impulse attempts to separate individuals’ identities from their situations. On this view, language becomes “person centered.” For example, a homeless individual is referred to as an “individual experiencing homelessness,” and a criminal becomes a “criminalized person” or a “justice-involved person.” This view ultimately comes from the philosophy of “expressive individualism,” or the belief that nothing should define a person but his or her inner psychological core (i.e., “who you are on the inside”).

While there are numerous issues with the philosophy of expressive individualism, suffice it to say that this view does not agree with ancient wisdom. The Bible routinely refers to “the rich,” “the poor,” and even “the unrighteous.” While external circumstances can sometimes be changed, they are a self-evident factor in our identity. A child can one day become an adult, but for the time being, he is largely defined by his childhood. He is not merely a “person experiencing youth.” Where we can err in the other direction is to assume that we know exactly who a person is because of only one factor—for example, to assume too much because a person is addicted to drugs. Human identities are multi-faceted and are never just one thing.

This doesn’t mean person-centered language should always be avoided. The differences in the way people groups speak, even within a single community, should be a catalyst for conversation rather than judgment. There’s no problem with saying “people in poverty,” but don’t judge the church down the street for saying “the poor,” because, after all, they’re only using the language that Jesus used.

Personal preference

People have preferences—this is true in arguably every area of life. We often try to justify our preferences and provide some universal reason as to “why” pistachio ice cream is better than mint chocolate chip or “flourishing” is better than “thriving.” But moralizing about preference is a waste of time. This is not to say that everything is a matter of relativistic preference; we can certainly have substantial debates about morals and facts. But some debates are matters of amoral preference, and debates about the definitions of words often fall into this category. Most dictionaries offer more than one definition for a word, there is more than one dictionary to choose from, and the origin of the word often suggests a different definition entirely. Many Christians add the complication of modifying the meanings of English words based on biblical Greek or Hebrew words that have an entirely different etymology and range of meanings. 

Consequently we, as communicators, have a lot of flexibility in which words we choose and how we choose to define them (e.g. do people need “justice” or “Shalom?”). We dress our preferences up in high-sounding reasons, but it’s better to just acknowledge that there is often no universal justification. So what do you do when two people use the same word to mean two different things? Set the disputed word aside and pick a different word or phrase that is clear to both parties. Don’t discuss what words mean, discuss what you mean. Don’t let preferential word choice put a damper on your ability to work with others.

There are numerous causes of language sensitivity. Some are legitimate, but sometimes they provoke pointless conflict. There’s no problem with using your in-house language, but try not to make it more restrictive than needed. Take a tip from Jesus, who used multiple parables and phrases to communicate the same basic ideas. The broader we keep our language, the easier it is to get along with others. And when working with people whose terminology differs from yours, exude humility and extend genuine curiosity. Most importantly, avoid jumping to conclusions. Words matter, but meaning matters far more.