Tips for writing in less politically polarizing, triggering ways

For depolarizers, journalists, activists, and politicians: Guidance on how language can unintentionally drive people away

“I believe it is our responsibility to connect with people outside of our political tribes. But that responsibility doesn’t only belong to the people communicating the news; it also lies with you and with me. The consumers.”
— Isaac Saul, founder of

Tangle

News, in his TED Talk about language and polarization

Group polarization leads to polarized language. Groups in conflict grow to use different language (e.g., “illegal alien” vs “undocumented immigrant”). Some words will be perceived in completely different ways (e.g., “woke”). Some words come to be associated with one group or another for various reasons (e.g., “democracy,” “freedom”).

And polarized language helps drive the conflict. There are many ways that toxic conflict is self-reinforcing, and language is a part of that. Many people are constantly interpreting the other side’s language and slogans and catchphrases in the worst possible ways, which drives more anger and contempt (which drives more anger and contempt on the other side).

This is just to say: language is important in all of this. Language is how conflict grows; and thinking about language can help us resolve conflict.

Over the past few years, I’ve occasionally added to a “depolarization dictionary” of mine. It’s meant to give guidance on specific terms that I think are often unnecessarily driving people away. For example, an activist might talk about common sense, not realizing why that can rub people the wrong way. Or a journalist might write about misinformation, unaware of how that term has liberal-leaning connotations. Or someone in the bridge-building/depolarization space might write a piece about the importance of moderation, unaware of the different interpretations of that word and how it may bother some politically passionate people.

Polarization makes us all speak in ways that polarize us further, whether we’re trying to do that or not (again, this is a naturally self-amplifying cycle). People who want to work on this problem (even as they also pursue their political goals) must try to be aware of the perceptions and reactions people have to various polarized, baggage-laden words and phrases around us.

With more awareness of the playing field, you’ll get better at using alternative words/phrases that get your point across just as well. Often, thinking through the various ambiguities and associations various terms have will, on its own, help make your writing more clear and more persuasive.

My dictionary

This resource of mine is here in a Google Sheet:

I share it in case it might be helpful for some people seeking to communicate in less polarizing ways. If you like my approach, feel free to add a comment in the resource requesting that I add guidance on specific words/phrases you’ve struggled with or seen others struggle with.

This resource is far from complete; it just contains some of the more common and less obvious sources of unintentional agitation I’ve seen from journalists, activists, and bridgebuilders. Obviously there are many more words and phrases, but for many of those it can be fairly obvious what’s bothering people; I was focusing on some less obvious areas.

And of course these are just my own thoughts. Your mileage will vary. Even people who wish to lower toxic polarization will often disagree about approaches.

Related resources

And clearly I’m not the only person to put something like this together. For people interested in speaking in less polarizing ways, here are some other resources:

• AllSides Red-Blue Translator: Info about how different words/phrases are perceived by conservatives and liberals.

• Bridging Dictionary: From MIT’s Center for Constructive Communication, a resource with words that are used and perceived differently across the political divide.

• Civic Language Perceptions Project: A guide to “understanding the degree to which various civic terms are coded or loaded in ways that make them politicized.”

• ? What resources have you seen? I know I’m forgetting some, and there are probably some I don’t know about. Ping me here or via my contact page.

I also recommend watching Isaac Saul’s TED Talk; anyone interested in the relationship between language and polarization will appreciate that.

From TheFulcrum.us article about PACE’s Civic Language Perceptions Project

Activism and depolarization

Some might wonder: Why do you care about activists using more clear, more persuasive language? How is activism associated with the goal of reducing polarization?

As discussed in my books, I see the interests of activists as aligned with the interest of reducing toxic polarization. Unlike our instincts often lead us to believe, these goals can be aligned. Activists who want to win (and I mean win long-term; win in real ways; win in ways that don’t add to division, contempt, and dysfunction) should want to embrace persuasive approaches — and taking persuasive approaches naturally requires one to take less contemptuous and more empathetic approaches.

Contempt drives our narratives and beliefs further apart, making them binary, either/or, lacking in nuance, and more extreme. Improving how we disagree with each other will naturally change what we disagree about.