In one of the most famous scenes of the beloved family movie, Princess Bride, Inigo Montoya responds to his very-short criminal boss Vizzini, who likes to throw around big words. “You keep using that word — I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
A similar question may help Americans today, who are in many cases using the same words, not realizing they have come to mean very different things depending on the socio-political leaning of the person saying it.
‘The Red Blue Dictionary’
It was this language confusion a decade ago that prompted me and several others at the National Coalition of Dialogue and Deliberation spanning the socio-political spectrum to begin mapping out the competing meanings of terms in America — as a way to promote deeper understanding across the growing American divide. Rather than assuming everyone knows what “constitutional” or “biblical” or “accepting” connotes or invokes, the idea was to invite curiosity in various meanings.
Whereas for one person “biblical” is categorically positive and uplifting, for instance, for someone else it may leave them wary of being judged. A similar dynamic is at play with the word “inclusive” or “accepting,” with some using them as unilaterally positive, while others feeling cautious about the implications of their meaning.
What started as the “Red Blue Dictionary” was eventually adopted by AllSides.com, a news organization aiming to “free people from filter bubbles so they can better understand the world — and each other.” The list of hundreds of hot-button terms is now called the Red Blue Translator and is used by educational institutions across the country.
Evolving definitions of words can eventually lead people to feel like they’re inhabiting different continents — at least, if we’re not attentive to those differences. Perhaps the gateway to new learning together could start with a question as simple as, “what does this word mean to you?”
Reaching for language that spans the divide
In a recent Braver Way podcast episode, long-time national politics reporter Isaac Saul, with Tangle News, described the landmine he once stepped into around language with the immigration debate.
Whether their news outlet described people who crossed the border illegally as “undocumented immigrants” (preferred by progressives) or “illegal immigrants” and “illegal aliens” (preferred by conservatives), the staff would get angry emails from one side or the other.
“No person can be illegal. I’m canceling my account. I’m unsubscribing. You guys are clearly in the tank for Trump,” some would say. And then when they shifted terms, others would complain, “It’s so obvious that you guys are liberal. You’re calling them, undocumented immigrants.”
That prompted a deeper editorial process aiming to “neutralize our language and to make it approachable for as wide a range of people as possible” — prompting their newsroom to use the legal term, “unauthorized migrant”— which neither “dehumanizes migrants,” Saul says, but also doesn’t “soften the issue.”
Since that change a year ago, Tangle News hasn’t received a single angry email. That leads Saul to believe that there are ways to navigate these language barriers in a way that “satisfies both sides” — all without sacrificing the truth.
Clashing attempts to welcome
These competing language differences are not merely a subjective or academic exercise. After all, language is something we not only speak each day but which we also live — with differences showing up in the details of our daily lives and interactions.
One vivid example of this came up on another Braver Way podcast recently, in an episode entitled “Pledges & pronouns: When civic rituals clash.” In recent months leading up to the election, the Deseret News has partnered with this podcast to help promote cross-partisan peacemaking and understanding, along with KUOW, Seattle’s NPR news station.
Steve Saltwick, who leads the largest local Braver Angels group in Austin, Texas, tells podcast host Mónica Guzmán about the discomfort that arises in a group that asks everyone to share their pronouns or participate in a land acknowledgment. In his words, this “sets up a framework that I fundamentally don’t agree with” and effectively “chills speech.”
“If you’re gonna be the guy that doesn’t do it,” he explains, “now you’re in the out group.”
While sympathizing with Saltwick’s discomfort, Guzmán points out that secular and progressive people sometimes feel similar discomfort when the Pledge of Allegiance is recited or when a prayer is given to start a meeting.
In all these cases, people are genuinely intending to create a welcoming atmosphere at the start of a meeting. Yet, despite these hopes, Guzmán notes that these attempts at welcoming can ironically feel off-putting in a way that leaves some people feeling pushed away.
“The thing that is designed to welcome people into a space ends up pushing you away all the more. And so it, it feels like such a dilemma.”
The answer isn’t to stop prayer, pledges or even pronoun discussions. So, what to do?
More charity and intentionality
One positive solution is reflected in what Saltwick tells Guzmán near the end of their conversation — specifically, his decision to “assume good attention until proven otherwise.” Over the course of his work, this seasoned civic leader has learned that “it is amazing how many people have good intentions” in their efforts to improve things, even if they disagree on how to go about this.
Another part of the solution may be bringing more intentionality to the words used and actions taken. As Saltwick puts it, these actions at the beginning of a meeting “shouldn‘t be a mindless performative ritual” that happens just “because everybody else does it.”
Whether starting a meeting with pronouns, land acknowledgements, pledges or prayers, Saltwick’s advice seems sound: take a moment to explain to participants why something is being done, in a way that invites more conscious and active participation.
That avoids making people feel forced into participating if they want to opt out. And for those who decide to opt-in, they feel more aware of the rationale and purpose behind what they’re being invited to do.
The value of listening carefully across differences
In an American era where it’s natural to just pick “one or the other interpretation” and defend it to the teeth, Guzmán suggests another responsibility befalls those who “see both interpretations” on a particular issue or challenge.
“You can’t do that anymore,” she suggests. “You can’t just pick a side. You have to do something else.”
Rather than just fight in our national conversation, Guzmán suggests a deeper wrestle is required here — one that seeks to thoughtfully compare different positions, and explore ways to draw hearts together who happen to hold the different positions. Along the way, she believes these contrasts can teach us a lot.
“So here’s to looking at the contrasts this election. Whether it’s in the news media, or in your conversations with people who cast their votes for the other side. The different language we use, the different stories we lean on.”
Regardless of what turns out to be the truth, Guzmán says, the process of listening, learning and exploring will ultimately benefit us all.