Say It Better

The language we choose has the potential to challenge our biases and assumptions and highlight the commonalities we share, or to distance us from other people, creating barriers to empathy. Language can be a powerful tool in resisting the divisions that are present in our society, building understanding of and connection to others (and ‘The Other’), and encouraging people to view those who do not share their own lived experience as equals. 

To empathise with others we need to understand them, and to achieve a caring, harmonious society we need to be able to understand people who have had completely different experiences to ourselves. This takes time and conscious effort, but we can support this through our everyday language choices. 

Many fantastic charities and social enterprises work with people all over the country, and whether they are specialists in a certain topic or embedded within their local community, these organisations are often incredibly attuned to the people they are working with and have a real understanding of their situations and respect for them. Overwhelmingly, they operate from a place of genuine care, respecting people without judgement and looking beyond someone’s current circumstances to see the whole person. These organisations deliver their activities with dignity, from a place of equality but this is not always reflected in the way they talk about their work. The way the sector works has progressed significantly from its origins, but our language is still catching up. 

Whether it be to funders, policy influencers, donors or even in talking to potential participants, many fixed phrases have become part of the sector’s vocabulary that don’t necessarily reflect the way the work is being carried out. Our language choices should mirror the values-based approaches we take to working with people and in turn, framing our work in ideal language can drive better practice. Rebalancing this disconnect should become a shared aim for all those invested in the organisation - a kinder, more respectful and empathetic society should be a shared vision for all those associated. 

Moreover, challenging potentially negative or apathetic views towards the groups we are working with is a key aspect of supporting them to restore a sense of empowerment and self-respect. By confronting stereotypes with reality, organisations can further their own aims of supporting any given group by changing the conversation and allowing us to focus on the true scope for change, rather than glossing over this with phrases that have become all but meaningless. 

When we call communities or people ‘disadvantaged’, we ignore the decisions taken by people that lead to these conditions. If we describe them as ‘underserved’, we remove the blame from the members of that community and start thinking about what needs to change to affect this position. When we characterise people as ‘vulnerable’ we confine them to a class that needs our ‘protection’, ignoring the individual vulnerabilities that they may be facing, and their immense resilience in overcoming events in their lives that many people using these terms will never have to experience. 

Using more reflective, more accurate, more dignified language should not be considered an ‘add-on’ to our work, but a fundamental part of our sector’s purpose to pursue social justice. 

One simple step we can take in changing the narrative is being conscious in our language choices. We can question the commonly accepted phrases that have become so natural, we can opt for alternative phrasing, we can decide to be more respectful in our messaging. Charities and social enterprises can set the tone not only in policy but in the language we use to talk about one another. 

It can be hard to rethink something that has become so entrenched in our daily vocabulary, so here are two simple principles to help you to start saying it better today:

There can be a huge emphasis on defining specific target audiences and shaping your message to suit each, and this can be incredibly effective. It can however also lead to talking about people as statistics or as their current circumstances, as long as it’s to certain audiences. One easy check we can carry out is asking “Would I say this to the person/people I am discussing?” If the answer is no, find another way! People should be spoken about with respect, regardless of whether or not they will see/hear it. 

Defining people by the support they are receiving or the situation they find themselves in is not the most dignified or respectful way we could describe them. By putting ‘people’ first this encourages the audience to consider their humanity before attaching any other labels or assumptions. We can also then be more specific about what we actually mean by these phrases, instead of churning them out without looking any deeper at their meaning, for example:

‘The vulnerable/needy’ - ‘people who are facing difficult/challenging circumstances’

‘Low hanging fruit’ - ‘people who are already visible/active in their community’

‘Hard to reach’ - ‘people who aren't currently engaging in activities or services’ (and don’t forget to question why this might be! Is your service truly accessible to them?)

‘The homeless’ - ‘people who are experiencing homelessness’

‘Patients/clients/service users/referrals’ - ‘people we are working with’.

This could be equally applicable to other groups your charity may be working with, for example ‘abandoned/unwanted animals’ - ‘animals in need of a home’.

Some people do prefer identity-first language, for example 'disabled people' (rather than 'people with disabilities'). This recognises that, for example, disability is not temporary, and can be a fundamental part of someone's life and how they identify, and that people are often disabled by inaccessible structures within society.

It's always preferable to try to understand the preferences of your audiences and reflect this in your messaging. Where this isn't possible, my default is to use people-first language.

Let's not remain disengaged from our language choices, passively regurgitating the same words and phrases each day without considering their actual meaning (or lack of) and potential impact. Let's actively think about it and ensure it's language we choose, not just language we use.

So many organisations are doing such positive work it feels counter-productive to accompany that with negative messaging. Let’s highlight the hopefulness, the impact of our services and the potential for our society over the pessimistic circumstances that we are responding to. In a world overloaded with terrible events and compassion fatigue, let’s choose to contribute positive content, highlighting encouraging outcomes to motivate people to want to be a part of our mission.