Why bullsh*t language is so annoying
Understanding why this style of language is so seductive might help us break free from its grip
This post was first published on Apolitical, the platform for public servants.
Buzzwords, clichés and endless strings of meaningless words have taken over our language like some sort of invasive strangling vine. But it’s not until I tried to think up alternatives that I saw why and began to appreciate their seductive power. ‘Bullshit language’, this ragtag collection of bad writing styles is interpreted by bullsh*t scholars (yes there is such a thing!) to be about deliberately subverting the truth. Whilst this is sometimes the case, the reality is often much less malign — we get caught up in it because it’s easier, we want to fit in and get through our to-do list as quickly as possible.
So I tried to understand just why bullsh*t language is so annoying, and yet we continue to use it. This is what I found.
Different types of bullsh*t language and why they are so irritating
Because they are overused…
Many of the most annoying buzzwords are only annoying because we have heard them until we are sick of them. New normal we are already sick of and it’s only recent. As the Economist style guide reminds us, “clichés weren’t always clichéd”. They were once a “strong and vivid expression” which did a great job of communicating an idea in a clear and succinct way.
Take low hanging fruit as an example. It is a colourful, simple and memorable way to describe ‘an action which you can do easily and quickly to get to a solution’. The alternatives show why it’s so popular: Quick/early wins probably comes to mind first. That’s worse. Easy pickings/prey/target? Yuck. Low risk-high yield, readily attainable objectives? Yawn. No-brainer, plain sailing, shooting fish in a barrel, often suggested as synonyms, just aren’t the same thing at all.
Psychologists propose that phrases which are short and can be easily pictured are the easiest to recall — another plus for low hanging fruit. Perhaps its aptness, brevity and sheer memorability is the reason for its popularity and also the cause of its downfall.
Their overuse means these buzzwords are very familiar and behavioural science tells us we like to stick with things we know. It is quite natural then that a memorable, familiar buzzword is the first thing that springs to mind. Which is a shame, because terms like out of the box, elevator pitch, work-life balance, offline, moonshot, more with less, and win-win are useful shortcuts, just what we want to say, but are now too hackneyed to use without tempting ridicule. And, thinking of new alternatives is really difficult, mentally challenging and boringly time-consuming. I know, I am trying quite hard and not doing that well!
…meaningless
Many other phrases are irritating because they are also meaningless. Blue sky thinking, ducks in a row, down the rabbit hole, pushing the envelope. There is no excuse for using these because they add nothing to the meaning and make you look daft.
Meaninglessness is also at the heart of the irritation with what I like to call Guff. Guff is long-winded, it is formed of a collection of abstract, unintelligible terms expressed in a passive form. I saw a lovely example in a Financial Times supplement on AI and Digital Health the other day. (This was a warning — no need to say ‘digital’ health here, because if it uses AI, err, it has to be digital.) The research discussed was supposed to give us “A new approach to digital health readiness” which “recommends 10 enablers to fully harness digital transformations in support of equitable health futures”.
There are three main problems with guff and probably most bullsh*t language:
1. No one really listens. These phrases are so meaningless they skim over the surface of the mind and you lose people’s attention quickly.
2. No one understands you. Given that the purpose of communication is to have something understood, this is a biggie. Not least, think of all that time, money and effort wasted.
3. People think less of you. They think you’re trying to be clever and sound superior. Or perhaps that you are not that clever because you only communicate in clichés. Worse, guff also risks people believing you are trying to deceive them by obscuring facts or avoiding drawing attention to unpalatable information. (This is a quite reasonable assumption, as very often that is entirely the point of it.)
…pretentious
Circle back, meaning to discuss something again later, was the equal most unpopular phrase (with deep dive) in a poll of 550 people in a workshop I recently ran on ‘Cut the jargon — speaking with clarity in the public service’ on Apolitical. That’s a different kettle of fish. (Oops, sorry.)
First, it looks pretentious, as in: ‘I want to circle back to my original point.’ Replacing a perfectly decent word (like to come back or refer ) with something unnecessarily fancy is just trying too hard to look interesting. This is often because what you are saying isn’t interesting, and you feel the need to pimp it up.
Pretentiousness may also be at the root of the annoyance with other terms suggested by the group, such as unpack, ping, golden thread and land.
…insincere
Circling back to circling back (also top of the Los Angeles Magazine’s “soul sucking corporate phrases”)which is also interpreted as a sign of insincerity eg: ‘let’s circle back on this’. People anticipate, perhaps rightly, there will be no circling back, the issue will never be discussed again, and you are too gutless to tell them. Or there will be endless circling back with loads of meetings and no action at all.
… inappropriate for the setting
Jargon is sometimes seen as synonymous with these buzzwords, but it has its own distinct meaning — ‘specialist language used by a profession or a group that is difficult for others to understand’.
Using specialist language, like legal, medical or scientific terms in the right setting is useful and provides helpful language shortcuts. Used outside that group people assume, possibly rightly, that you are using it to look good or signal your superiority.
I used to spend a lot of time with social scientists, many who use their own jargon willy-nilly, making no attempt to help the rest of us know what the heck they are on about. Here are my top five, which make me literally grind my teeth: normative anchor points, socio-technical imaginaries, reflexivity, fictive, and any normal words they’ve stuck ‘isation’ on the end — as in responsibilisation, problematisation, deep institutionalisation. But it is easy to go native quite quickly. Framing, contested and heuristics used to annoy me and now I have to regularly stop myself from using them (that’s how I know they are used in the belief that you will look clever and fit in, but almost always they don’t).
I’m putting acronyms into this category too. The pointless use of acronyms which are not explained was considered even more irritating than buzzwords in the poll of Apolitical workshop participants. Like jargon, acronyms have their place, but their incessant use can make you look arrogant, lazy and disrespectful. The acronym addict seems to think anyone who is anyone will know them, and if you don’t, well you aren’t really anyone and don’t matter. So be frugal with acronyms and if you have to use them, explain them.
…or is designed to evade responsibility
Individuals and institutions, consciously and unconsciously, use bullsh*t language to obscure the impact of their decisions or distance themselves from the emotional consequences of their actions. This is why terms like rightsize or downsize were invented and why strange, distant words replace perfectly understandable ones — like value engineering to describe the stringent cost-cutting demands which ultimately led to the UK’s Grenfell Tower fire.
This is where bullsh*t language can be a symptom of much deeper problems that ‘How to avoid jargon’ workshops won’t be able to fix. When language is routinely used to manipulate, distract or disguise important issues it is a symptom of a problem culture that needs an altogether more radical approach to change.
Sometimes it is unavoidable
The problem remains that sometimes you have to use bullsh*t language to fit in and show you belong in the culture of the organisation. In the public service for example, using certain politicians’ favourite and often utterly meaningless phrases has to be done to get your work noticed and your opinions taken seriously.
Or as Olga Khazan pointed out in her excellent article in The Atlantic, for many workers, it can be more risky to avoid them, for example, “to tell your boss that you’re going to ‘come up with really random, insane ideas to see if you like any of them’, rather than that you plan to ‘think outside the box’”. She recommends “rather than disrupting the status quo, you may just want to leverage your ability to speak Corporate in order to bring more to the table.”
This is the second article in a series. The first Bullshit erodes trust — why we do it and how to stop! is available here. A third, Practical tips on communicating with clarity will be available shortly. Hilary also presented a workshop Cut the jargon: Communicate with clarity in the public service, which brings all this thinking together and is available here.
👋 You can create a post like this one! Share your thoughts with a community of public servants. Learn more
