Epidemic Language

Phrases that had we had a different relationship with last year:

“Social distancing.”
”Droplets.”
”Super spreader”
”New normal.”
”You’re on mute.”

Culture changes, and with it, language does as well.

I believe that language is the imperfect representation of our intentions but its symbols, be it words or gestures, is rooted in context. If the recipient doesn’t share the same experience (read: language), it doesn’t matter if the words being expressed are the literal definition or not. Communication has failed. This is why intention isn’t the sole basis for judging how someone uses their words - the impact matters, too. Conversely, impact isn’t the only thing that matters: you can’t entirely blame someone for not understanding your language.

When I was in elementary school, I learned that the victory hand ✌️(also known as peace sign) could be considered very offensive in British culture, like how the middle finger 🖕is perceived in our culture. Of course, neither of these gestures is universally perceived in the same way around the world.

Words and gestures are neither affirming or offensive on their own, they rely on intention and the culture in which they rest. In that sense, there would be no such thing as a racial slur if we did not live in a world with institutionalized and systemic racism.

Now here’s the truly mind blowing thing: just as much as the meaning of words can change, the way that we use them can also change the culture in which they’re found in. As Eric Liu brilliantly said, “wit can neuter malice.” The reappropriating of words or symbols not only change the relationship with the words, but they also change the relationship and power dynamics between dominant and marginalized groups (Galinsky, et al). It can lead to more civil discourse and neutralize the insulting context of the term (Epstein).

It doesn’t take a global pandemic or a Supreme Court case to change the language that we use, but those things reveal how quick and powerful those changing dynamics can be.