I recently wrote to you about words essentially being filters for meaning:
Each word has a different configuration of open and closed gates that determine which parts of reality can be communicated through them and which can’t.
That is why, for example, all chairs can be referred to as “seats”, but not all seats can be referred to as “chairs”.
My main point was that there are very few real synonyms, and which words you use can change whether your phrase can transmit certain feelings or not. (E.g. Some words can be used with passive-aggression while others can’t).
One of the layers of meaning I didn’t touch upon back then, is that words also act as social signifiers.
This is a layer of meaning that can’t be found in the dictionary, which is precisely the point.
Here’s how it works:
If a person decides to frequently use certain words, the meaning of those words starts to carry a bit of the person inside.
This may sound strange. But it’s true.
If you ask someone “How you doin’?” , they might think you’re referencing Joey from friends. You’re actually asking a normal question. But Joey has made his way into the meaning of those words.
Or back in the 2000s, you could talk about escaping the matrix, and people knew that you were just interpreting the movie as a metaphor. But in the 2020s, if you’d say something like that, some amount of those people will feel Andrew Tate in those words.
He technically uses a similar metaphor, but mentions it so much that he infused the words with his personality and everything he stands for.
Accidentally or not, Tate hijacked the meaning of “The Matrix” in a way I imagine the Wachowskis must not be happy with.
Since most things that apply to interactions with people can also apply to interactions with groups, but at larger scale, it’s only logical that words also get embedded with the meaning of the groups that overuse them.
And this is how vocabulary ends up becoming a medium for social signaling, in the same way fashion functions:
Once a certain subculture, social class, political leaning, region of the world, occupation or generation, starts overusing a certain word, the word becomes an aesthetic that signifies you belong to that group.
If you’d say “he was out here giving main character energy but delulu about it. mid, not it”, one could assume you’re Gen Z (or at least a milennial writer called Pep trying hard to pretend but not fully getting it).
If you’d say “He rolled up all on-fleek and swag, giving major YOLO energy but it was actually so basic LOL.”, you’d communicate more or less the same message, except you’d also communicate “Hello, I’m a milennial.”
And if you’d say “That macaroni attempted to bamboozle us all with his fustian nonsense. Quite the ninnyhammer, quite the quiz. Zounds! Nobody was fooled. ” you’d be telling everyone the same thing while also saying that you are either 300 years old or a time traveler.
You might wonder: why does this matter, if the meaning is still understood?
It matters because once a word has become a social signifier, it is used to communicate inclusion and exclusion.
Why does it matter to me that Andrew Tate stole the Matrix from us?
Because now it’s hard for me to talk about it without signaling allegiance with the guy. The same way that you can’t use the word “gnarly” without potentially signaling you have an affinity for California skate/surf culture.
People pay attention to which synonyms others use so that they can make subconscious snap judgments about whether the person belongs in their group, and if not, whether the group they belong to is one they have positive or negative feelings towards.
This is a type of categorization we all do, even if we think we don’t.
(If you think you’re somehow above it and more exclusive, let me ask you this: If I was writing this piece using a lot of words that signify I belong to a subculture called “white pride”, would you still take my words as seriously, or would you believe I’m wrong about them?)
To some degree this is fakeable, of course.
You can swap the word “use” with “utilize” , “guess” with “surmise” and “a lot” with “a plethora” in every phrase and some people might be fooled about your educational background.
(In fact, people frequently assume I’m highly educated but I’m just a high school dropout who can adapt his “vocabulary” to their “lexicon”. When I write, I specifically do the opposite: I like to use words the majority of people can understand. I even make grammatical errors that sound more like real speech.)
But language isn’t the sole social signifier. It’s merely one of the layers.
And one of the main signals we subconsciously scan for when interacting with each other is congruence:
If the way we speak isn’t aligned with our body language, voice tone, or how we visually present ourselves people will either grow suspicious of us or cringe a little every time we speak.
Now… Where am I going with this?
Since vocabulary signals things like social class and subculture, if we use words that signal to a group the listener particularly dislikes or looks down on, they are likely to reject our message entirely.
Some people will reject a message because it sounds academic, distant, elitist or unalive.
Some people will reject a message because it sounds “dumb” and “uninformed”.
…even if the message is the same! The only thing that made the latter sound dumb or the former “distant” is the social signifiers.
To me, this seems to be a crucially underexplored dimension in education on communication and relationships.
See, if you’re working on your communication with a therapist, you’ll naturally pick up terms like “boundaries“, “toxic” or “validate”.
But these words don’t just communicate their meaning, they also communicate “this is something I picked up in my therapy” (or IG algorithm).
The same thing happens to Nonviolent Communication or Authentic Relating.
You will learn amazing tools for expressing yourself in more honest and productive ways. But inadvertently, the tools will be steeped in vocabulary that signifies which subcultures it came from (e.g. “landing”, “noticing”, “what’s alive”.)
And for some people, merely picking up those terms will be enough to stop listening to you. Effectively hindering the communication.
It’s not that therapists or Authentic Relating teachers are trying to make the language exclusive. (If anything, many of these places are aiming at more inclusive language.)
It’s just that this “social signifier” layer of communication naturally develops as words get used more often. It’s the same reason everyone now hates the em-dash and the “it’s not X, it’s Y” structure (which I just used, sorry, lol.)
It’s the same reason we can still spot AI-writing that doesn’t have these things, because it’s full of random other Claudisms (“quietly”, “soft”, “lives in”, “that’s the gap”, etc.)
Whenever an entity (group, person or otherwise) overuses a certain term, it immediately becomes a social signifier.
The challenge with this is that you can go and train in communication skills, then go and converse with your partner, friend, or family, and suddenly they get annoyed and things get worse.
Some of them don’t want to hear what you have to say, because all the social signifiers are off-putting to them.
This is an unfortunate side-effect. Because the reason frameworks like Circling, Nonviolent Communication or Authentic Relating develop their own vocabulary is precisely because they discover that certain words are extremely potent and apt for pointing to certain experiences.
Not being able to use those words can make it harder to communicate them.
But in the end, using those words and having them stop you from being listened to at all makes communication even harder.
The solution to this problem is this:
When you learn new tools for communication or relating, don’t focus too much on the words.
Focus on the principles.
Focus on the energetic stances the words are pointing to.
Once you get those, you can translate communication into a language the other person is willing to receive:
If they show a distaste for the language you’re using, say the same thing but remove the social signifiers.
Maybe even throw in some they particularly like (be careful though, you don’t want to risk being the dad that tries to speak like the teenagers).
Have you ever noticed how aspiring dictators get so much support in non-violent coups?
They don’t speak like politicians. They speak the way people who live in poverty speak. Because that’s how they get their message to resonate.
If they’d speak like a politician they’d risk looking elitist and be met with hate. By changing their social signifiers, they create a sense that they’re different and will change things for the better. Overthrow the oppressors, etc.
I’d rarely ever tell you to act like an aspiring dictator, but this is one thing they get right:
If you want your message to land, you must speak in a way the listener is willing to hear.
A member of The Connection Dojo recently referred to this as “street-NVC” (“NVC” is short-hand for “Non-violent Communication”).
For example, if you want to practice the principle of owning your experience, you don’t have to word every phrase “When you do ___ I make a story in my mind that ___ and when I believe that story I feel ____”.
You can just…own it.
If you actually own it (as an inner attitude), you are free to speak the same way you’re used to speaking to this person.
You are free to practice what you learned, but have it serve the connection even when the other person feels a dissonance with the practice itself.