Dialog across difference #36: "DEI hire" and other dog whistles

In new research published in the academic journal Politics, the scholars did a large n discourse analysis of the very same words used by Brietbart and The New York Times, building on previous research that looked at the communication and conflict problems in multilingual societies when one ethnic group and another used the same words but with very different meanings. This 2024 study finds that, "We suggest that intralinguistic relativity can be at least as harmful to successful public deliberation and political negotiation as interlinguistic relativity" (Mor, Nash & Green, 2024, p. 319).

In other words, when the conservative, even MAGA Brietbart refers to diversity it will surround that word with scornful pejorative context in many or most cases, while a liberal publication like The New York Times may use the same word as a positive descriptor. 

A sensitive facilitator or mediator working with folks with different political or ideological baselines will seek to clarify the meaning so that assumptions can give way to a more human set of contextuals that may better identify real commonalities or at least appreciation for any authentic differences. Honest minds can differ but grasping a lifetime of radically different social environments amongst all discussants or disputants can lead to a more common language with actual common meaning.

I experienced this recently as I facilitated an interdisciplinary dialog session. Near the conclusion of the allotted time I called on one woman who had not spoken at all and happened to be Asian, ethnically. Since we were several sessions into our dialog project I felt I could be somewhat lighthearted in calling on her by noting that she had been taciturn and perhaps would like to speak. 

She took so much offense at that that she requested a private discussion with me, which I was happy to do. "I felt essentialized by your reference to me, a woman of Asian descent, as 'taciturn,' she complained. "That was a use of language that accessed a stereotype, which felt very wrong."

In my role as ongoing facilitator I was internally stunned, even angry, at an accusation I felt grotesquely unfair and based on her identification of politically incorrect words I was not allowed to use in reference to her. The inner anger was based on how completely mistaken she was; I may well have used exactly the same descriptor in a friendly manner to literally anyone who had not said a single word even though the group was nine of us, all of whom had engaged significantly except for her. 

However, I needed to deëscalate myself before I spoke, which I did, and simply asked, "What should I have said?" That's when her actual interests emerged. 

"If anyone isn't speaking, I hope you don't call on them," she said. "You would be better off just reminding the group that everyone has a voice and that we are committed to having that be a value. But if someone continues to refrain from speaking up, that's likely just where they are at that time on that day." 

I immediately agreed to do that and my inner anger gave way to a more mild inner annoyance at both her and myself. Since then, I followed her wishes and, so far so good. We both deëscalated and I will not argue for my right to use the word "taciturn," but I see her very different hearing of it and will never use it to describe her--or any other Asian person when she is in earshot. 

As is so often the case, the right and workable agreement is based on a common and mutual respect that can often only be achieved with some investigation, some compassionate curiosity.

References

Mor, F., Nash, E. J., & Green, F. (2024). Separated by a common language: How Breitbart and The New York Times produce different meanings from common words. Politics, 44(3), 319–336. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1177/02633957211012959