I’ve decided there are certain words and phrases I’m going to try, where possible, to ban from my professional written vocabulary. I don’t have an exhaustive list yet, but so far, the nominees are:
- community
- partnership(s)
- empower/ing/ed
- anti-social behaviour
I reckon if I can expunge those four dread creations from my work, the clarity (quality?!) of my writing will significantly increase. The importance of word choice is a favourite hobby horse of mine but I really feel it’s something worth taking a stand on. We will fight politically abusive language on the beaches and in our column inches. I’m not saying I regularly use these words anyway, but they appear in so many press releases we’re sent that if you use any of the press release at all, it’s a skill in itself to weed them all out.
This post was sparked by a press release mentioning the work of a “partnership” to “break down barriers in the community”. Can I say “Wut?” If it’s a community, surely the barriers are around it, not in it? But before we get ourselves in a tizzy trying to unravel that, I’ll move on.
To explain: In his brilliant book, Unspeak, Steven Poole attacks the use of “community” as divisive, pointing out that it is frequently used to label minority groups and set them apart. F’rinstance, we hear of the Jewish community and the gay community, but never the white community. In my regional journalist world, “community” seems increasingly to be used to mean “anyone above the age of 21 who is obviously not a cider-drinking, beer-swilling, hoodie-wearing, chavvy little scumbag”. Given that I’m also sick to the back teeth of ageism directed against young people, I’m going to refuse to use it on that basis that is divisive and discriminatory.
Partnerships: the use of this word annoys me because it is often used in a way that I think is incorrect. It’s also an excuse for every local government association with a profile and an agenda to push to muscle in on any coverage. People I speak to recite them like a mantra “You have to say thank you to the housing association and the police and the council and the mayor’s sister’s puppy.” Ok, maybe not the last one, but you can bet, nine times out of ten, none of these groups were responsible for the bright idea behind the story. They’re just coming in at the 11th hour and making themselves look good. I’ll admit they probably do bring something to the table on occasion, but I’m not there to flatter them. I’m there to make sure they’re doing their jobs properly. But mainly it annoys me because it’s used to describe groups of MORE THAN TWO. I know there are usually more than two partners in firms and such, but the overriding use I associate with it is to mean one body and then another. TWO. Not, three, six or ten. Two. You and your partner, not you and your multiple lovers having a mass orgy.
Empower/ed/ing: It’s over-used. And often belittling. The organisations who gather together in these monstrous perversions of “partnerships” between more than two entities often use it in their blurb to describe the ordinary bloke or blokette on the street who has had the idea they’re trying to pinch the credit for. They say “they’re empowered by what we’ve been doing here.” My considered response: O rly? It’s the least evil of the four, but I still don’t like it.
Anti-social behaviour: I remain convinced the Blair government invented this phrase. I’d never heard of it before 1997. And it seems that the problem it claims to describe has grown unstoppably with the popularity of these three little words. I’ve had more conversations than I care to count with local policemen describing large groups of da yoof hanging around in town as “anti-social” with none of them picking up on my heavy sarcasm that gathering together in a group should perhaps be classified as “social behaviour”. Their typical response has been that they’re “frightening the wider community” which da yoof are apparently not included in. And when it gets to the point where the police have powers to make it a criminal offence for someone to stand on a particular stretch of pavement within in a given amount of time, after having previously told to clear orff, you really do wonder what is going on. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if people found that dispersal orders just move “the problem” to another place. As a concept, anti-social behaviour is a load of round objects.
And the whole thing reaches a gloriously awful climax in PACT meetings, which stands for Partnerships And Communities Together. Which I reckon essentially means “Groups of people and some other groups of people come together to form a group. Of people.” They’re meetings when the General Public can come and have a whinge about whatever is on their minds to local bobbies and ultra-local councillors. They’re a stark illustration of just how excluding the word “community” can be. I’m not suggesting this was anyone’s fault, but when I went to PACT meetings regularly in Cardiff, everyone there was over 30. The only representative of anyone younger, apart from me who didn’t count, was a local authority youth worker. Who was coincidentally the only black person in the room.
I’m fighting a War on Language. WOL for short. Who’s with me?