The Language of Protests
I used an old communication model in my classes to emphasize that communication takes place in the mind of the receiver. If our message isn’t crafted with the receiver in mind, it’s likely that they won’t interpret the message as we intend.
Black Lives Matter! Because the slogan (and movement) arose from well-publicized deaths of numerous Black people at the hands of police, most receivers interpret the message as “Black lives matter as much as any other life.” The ‘as much as any other life’ is implicit. Granted, there are a few who claim to not understand and think that the message is that only Black lives matter. In my opinion, those claims are an attempt to distract attention from the issue.
Not all meaning in protest messages is that clear.
Abolish the Police! The receiver hears “Anarchy!” The sender meant “We need to reform how we handle public safety.”
The noise portion of the model is particularly relevant during times of stress, which could be the very definition of 2020. Emotional noise happens when the sender’s message evokes a visceral response in the receiver. The language of protests is intended to get people to pay attention and take action. Everyone is agitated. People are angry, afraid, and high on anticipation.
“We need to reform how we handle public safety” doesn’t fit neatly on a protest sign. It’s a clunky hashtag, and it doesn’t have the melodious flow of a good protest chant. However, it is a better starting point for talking about change. Are we asking the police to perform some functions better handled by social workers or addiction specialists? What resources are needed to make sustainable change happen?
“Abolish the Police!” does make a nice slogan for a poster or a hashtag or something to chant while marching with a thousand other people. Unfortunately it opens the door to “what about” or “what if” rebuttals. A receiver in a high state of anxiety interprets the words literally and thinks that the sender wants to do away with a government function that is ingrained into society.
The receiver generates a picture of what the world would look like without any police function at all. Who will come if my house is being broken into? Do I need to get a gun so I can keep my property safe? What will happen if someone rapes or murders me or someone I love? The picture created in the receiver’s mind gets in the way of a constructive conversation about reforming the system so it is just and better serves all of us.
Check Your White Privilege! The receiver hears “white people never face adversity.” The sender means “white privilege doesn’t mean that you don’t have problems, it means that the color of your skin isn’t one of them.”
Healthcare is a Human Right! The receiver hears “everyone should have exactly the same kind of healthcare.” The sender means “everyone should receive a basic level of healthcare.”
Down With Patriarchy! The receiver hears “men are bad.” The sender means “decision making power needs to be shared with women rather than dominated by men.”
The language of protest is problematic when it fosters simplistic thinking and knee-jerk reactions.
As difficult as it may be, we need to set our emotions aside and picture ourselves in their shoes if we want the language of protest to resonate with the people we’re trying to influence. When we say “your inability to understand the science is not an argument against its validity” the receiver is likely to interpret “your inability to understand” as “you’re stupid”. They get hung up on being called stupid and the conversation gets diverted away from the role that scientific research should play in developing public policy.
Focusing on slogans and jargon limits our thinking to either/or, right or wrong. You’re either with us or against us. There is no room for the nuance of complex problems. It’s too easy to fall into the trap of group think. It’s too easy to get caught up in punitive ways to bring the ‘other side’ around to our way of thinking. We’re angry. They’re wrong. We need to do something about it!
Social media makes it too easy for simplistic thinking and knee-jerk reactions to gain traction. Just this morning on social media I saw a video of a young black woman explaining, in her opinion, why property damage and looting were acceptable during protests about racial injustice. The person that posted the video included the comment “if you don’t understand why property damage isn’t a big deal after watching this, then you just don’t care [about racial injustice].” That comment completely ignores the reality that it is possible to understand someone else’s point of view and still disagree with them.
Social media can amplify the simplistic thinking and knee-jerk reactions. In the heat of the moment, a person makes a remark on their personal social media page. Someone else sees the remark, interprets it as racist or sexist or offensive in some other way. The internet makes it easy to find information about the people that offend us. Before you know it, the offended party is sharing screen shots and telling everyone they know not to do business with this person or to call their employer and insist that they be fired. Others who were not part of the original conversation and have only the screen shots on which to base their opinion pick up the cry.
Here’s the thing, outing a racist to their employer might get them fired, but it’s not likely to cause them to stop being a racist. Boycotting a business might have an impact on their profitability but it’s not likely to make a racist owner stop being a racist. The right to free speech applies to everyone, even those with whom we disagree.
Another problem with simplistic thinking and knee-jerk reactions fostered by the language of protest is that people who could and should be contributing to the dialogue shut down. They avoid getting engaged because they’re not comfortable with the rhetoric and they don’t want to be vilified when they express a point that isn’t exactly in line with the loudest voices.
There is a place for signs, hashtags, and clever chants during times of protest. Now is one of those times. Activists are calling attention to the problems of systemic racism in our judicial system, particularly with police brutality.
After everyone’s attention has been captured, then comes the hard tedious work of creating a dialogue that brings all the relevant people into the conversation. This work requires a more thoughtful nuanced use of language in order to foster understanding and find common ground.
The language of protest starts the process. The language of conciliation, cooperation, inclusion, and understanding continues the process. Let’s not let slogans and hashtags sabotage the larger dialogue that needs to happen. Let us all take a deep breath, step back, and think about what we’re saying.