Recent searches
Search options
I realize it isn't fashionable these days, but I really think that discourse is improved when conversation focuses on good vs. bad behaviors rather than good vs. bad people.
More specifically, *avoiding the use of nouns* to refer to groups of people (even people who do very bad things) helps with all of the following: 1. clarity of thought about where the problems lie, 2. remembering that humans have the capacity to change, and 3. facilitating strategic alliances.
Relatedly, analysis and critiques that make extensive use of the pronouns "they" and "them" to refer to a specific (or very often a less specific) group of people is likely to shut down listening, learning, empathy, and the capacity for constructive dialog both by the people referred to by the "them" label and by the people who see themselves as not falling under the "them" label.
There's a specific recent thread that prompted these thoughts today, but it's stuff that's been rolling around in my head for the past year or so, and I'm not sure that there's a lot of value in highlighting specific examples.
Instead, watch language and see what you think. How is language used? Are people or behaviors discussed? Are nouns used? Adjectives? Verbs? Is there a group being labeled as "them"?
Then think about the feelings that result. Do these language choices matter?
One exercise that I've found kind of interesting (when I remember to think about it) is to observe my own writing, and to try rewriting it in different ways. What does it take to communicate the same idea without using noun labels? How do I feel about different versions of my own writing? How do I imagine different kinds of readers might be affected by different versions of my text?