Semantics Matter

Regardless of your viewpoint, it is near impossible not to be aware of the current Black Lives Matter movement and the subsequent calls from some people that “all lives matter”. While I’m a big BLM supporter, I’m not going to be going into the issues concerning the cause in this article – mostly because I don’t feel like I have authority, direct life experience or historical knowledge to do so. Instead I want to explore how slogans, particularly those linked to political issues, can so easily be undermined if the language used is not watertight.

There are many sides to the use of language and its interpretation, from the more mathematical such as grammar and punctuation, to the more conceptual aspects of using certain words to emote different things. It is a combination of all these factors that a good writer will take into account when creating their work. Whether it is an advertising slogan, an informative medical website or a novel, a methodical and precise use of words should be taken to convey the clearest intent in a medium which doesn’t have the benefits of other real-world cues like body language or tone of voice.

The nuance of language

Lynne Truss’s 2003 book Eats, Shoots and Leaves does a fantastic job of the former, addressing the misuse of punctuation and how it can change meaning. The title is based on a joke where a Panda goes into a bar, eats a sandwich, shoots a gun and then leaves the establishment – all because of a misplaced comma in an encyclopaedia entry about pandas. Ever since having these kinds of rules drilled into us in school, they feel more obvious and imbedded in our brain, however this doesn’t stop the occasional business getting them wrong. Sometimes these can be harmless and often amusing – a company called Apostrophe had “great taste on it’s way” on their delivery bags, an irony which is cringeworthy. On other occasions it can cost businesses dearly, such as Oakhurst Dairy having to settle for $5 million to lorry drivers for unpaid overtime due to a missing comma in their employment contracts.

The second aspect of the more conceptual approaches to communicate specific feelings, emotions or influence how we interpret words is slightly more difficult to grasp. One of the things I love about language, and being a copywriter, is that while you can have numerous words that seemingly describe the same action or thing, your deliberate selection can subtly change how you translate a message to the reader. Consider the word ‘laugh’, we know what this action is but there are numerous verbs to more accurately paint a picture of that gives you a greater emotive visualisation of what is happening. If “she giggled” you might attach a certain innocence, playfulness or embarrassment to the laugh, if “she guffawed” you’d probably assume a large, loud, belly laugh or if “she sniggered” you may be more likely to assume some kind of mischievous, naughty or somewhat unkind reason behind it. When you then throw in titter, chuckle, whoop, chortle, screamed, cackled and more, you begin to understand the rich palette of language that can alter how you perceive the words you are reading.

It is when you then combine these two things together, the final step of consideration – how the overall message can be read and misread – takes effect. It’s necessary to read your copy how it is intended (to ensure it is as good as it can be), how your intended audience might perceive it (as demographics can be wide or narrow and relate to certain words in certain ways) but also how those outside that audience may unintentionally misinterpret or deliberately twist it to suit their viewpoint or goals.

Don't leave it open to interpretation

Sadly, one of the more robust and well thought out slogans in recent memory is Trump’s presidential campaign tagline Make America Great Again.* It could so easily have fallen into the same pitfall of being undermined by the opposition had the “again” not been added. Had it stated “Make America Great” then it could be argued the slogan suggests the US has never been great, which for a patriotic country would be candidacy suicide. The “again” does two keys things here – it prevents it being undermined, and it eludes an emotive response to those who believe the country isn’t like “the good old days” (a sentiment that often runs in older generations in many nations). Even for those of a younger age bracket, it is hard to argue against wanting your country to improve.

And here is where the issue where the Black Lives Matter slogan poses a problem. To the organisation that created it, and to supporters and empathise with it, the strapline reads how it is intended – black lives matter as much as anyone else’s. Through systematic and continued prejudice they are not treated in the same regard as white lives, most starkly demonstrated in the mistreatment of the black community by the police. Therefore, society needs to work together as a whole until police brutality against African Americans is no longer prevalent, and the respect and privilege afforded to the white population is awarded to all.

Black Lives Matter as a slogan doesn’t take into the account the non-sympathetic audience, however. By failing to do so it leaves itself open to being undermined and twisted by the “conservative” members of the population. Through either their deliberate or ignorant misinterpretation of those three words, the opposing camp can shift an important argument about social equality into a petty squabble about semantics. Even the smallest deflection can damage a movement, but when this argument not only rages online but is given prevalence and apparent credence by the news media and politicians, it can overshadow the original point the slogan was designed to communicate.

There have been numerous anecdotes since to expose how this viewpoint holds little weight. My favourite of which is if you went to the doctor with a broken arm saying it needs attention, for the doctor to reply, “all bones matter” and therefore refusing to treat your broken arm would be absurd. One positive of semantic arguments is that often the misinterpretation can be proven wrong through the logic of language. This doesn’t however prevent the original message being continually misconstrued.

Make it unquestionable

I feel it necessary to point out at this point the strength of the original Civil Rights Movement’s use of I Am a Man on sandwich boards. It takes a very similar approach to BLM but is watertight when it comes to semantics. If you were an anti-civil rights member of society, the only argument you can hold against it is to claim black people are not human (and therefore, animals). This is a bigger leap to make than the existing belief in public forums of the time that they were less of a human. It also has the potential to make people question their existing beliefs by poignantly pointing out the injustice.

While it can be easily argued why saying Black Lives Matter doesn’t mean all lives don’t, it is already too late. Opinions have been formed, people persuaded, much in the same way an inflammatory newspaper headline can stick and the subsequent apology for misinformation or misreporting falls on deaf ears. This even with more trivial matters – many people still believe playing Mozart to babies in the womb improves their intelligence for example. Something which is factually incorrect and was widespread after a small, badly formed study was reported in newspapers and remains “common knowledge” despite being heavily disproven since.

Now by no means am I putting any blame on the BLM movement for how people have reinterpreted their slogan. It solely rests with the opposing parties who wish to snidely push their own agenda by smoke screening the social cause and reducing it to a semantic argument. Instead I’m trying to highlight how despite having the best intentions, unfortunately when considering communication on contentious, political, environmental or social issues, extensive thought needs to go into the potential counter arguments against your message positioning. Terms like Global Warming and Climate Change how both fallen foul for the same reason (why isn’t it always hot then?/the climate is always changing).

Give no excuse to refuse change

Systematic black oppression is by no means a new thing, nor a problem solely in the US. For this and all positive change movements we as a population need to become less inclined to jump the gun and pick a whole group apart based on a slogan. In an ideal world we’d all approach such issues with a sense of humility as well as an enthusiasm to find out more before passing judgement. Why would we not want a better society for all?

However, as it stands – be it ignorance or active rejection – there will people who wish to discredit and diminish movements they disagree with based on top level information. And in order to combat and nullify them we should always remember, language holds power – semantics matter.

*It is worth noting here that this isn’t Trump’s “genius” and is, in fact, stolen from Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign. The fact it worked twice in living memory is a testament to the rigidity of the slogan.