A new lexicon 

CRJ’s Advisory Panel member, Amanda Coleman, examines how routine crisis phrases used by authorities can lose meaning or cause harm in her latest blog for WordPress. 


Image by h9images | Freepik

When in the days that followed the Uvalde school shooting on May 24, 2022, the then head of police said: “I will speak to the families when they quit grieving,” or when people talk about bereaved families getting ‘closure’ after an inquiry or court case, those things matter to me. It isn’t about ‘hurty words’, as some may say, but it is about understanding the effects of what we say on the trauma that people are already exposed to.

This recently became the subject of a X (Twitter) debate when I highlighted the effects of the words ‘walking wounded’. I was struck by something I had not thought about before, which was what those two innocent words used to help assess a situation might be having on those caught up in emergencies or disasters. It was highlighted by a survivor of the Nottingham attacks who was talking at the public inquiry this week. I knew when I posted it there would be some disagreement and discussion, which is probably not best dealt with through tweets.

What I’d like to focus on today is how language changes and that we may need a new lexicon or updated way to talk about situations. We have to keep considering the response and how it affects people. There are much bigger issues that are emerging from this inquiry, and they will be reviewed in detail. 

But, why those two words have become an issue is that they are set against a perception the survivors were ignored or were ‘second class’, which means they have an additional effect. Words matter, and the way we use them should be continually reviewed.

It is something that I talk to PR and communication officers about. They write statements and will use overused phrases such as ‘we will learn lessons’ or ‘we take this very seriously’. 

On their own, these words look fine, but when that is not what is happening, or when an organisation has not learnt lessons or prioritised the response, they are damaging. On top of that, it is clear that these overused phrases are now viewed negatively by people due to past incidents and experiences. There is a sad legacy of the way organisations have attempted to control the narrative or in some cases control the people who have been affected by the situation.

There are extensive research papers and academic considerations of how language affects our behaviour. It is something that was considered right back with Aristotle. If you want an overview, look at this from the Global Council for Behavioural Science.

If language can affect our behaviour and if it changes over time, then for me, this is a cue to ensure we are considering the words we use in responding to emergencies and disasters and listening to those who have been affected by them.

Read the full piece here.