L is for LANGUAGE

In my R.E.S.U.L.T. approach to storytelling for impact, L is for Language. As I noted in the overview of this approach, the fact your language should be accessible to your audience is a given. At a minimum, effective communication means speaking at a level your audience understands, using familiar terminology, and avoiding jargon and acronyms – all of which I’ve addressed in earlier articles.

But “speaking their language” means so much more than simply being accessible. Impactful advocates go beyond the basics and ask:

“Does the language I'm using resonate with my audience?”

“Am I connecting with their morals and their values?”

And, as a huge fan of The Awkward Yeti, my personal favorite,

“Am I reaching both their heads and their hearts?”

During my tenure with a wonderful organization that counts former President Jimmy Carter as its most famous volunteer, we advocated for laws that would help improve energy efficiency in homes across the country. In some offices on Capitol Hill, we talked about the cost savings that such laws would have: lower energy bills free up household income and reduced costs could mean reduced dependency on government support. In other offices, instead of financial resources, we focused on natural resources and the reduced impact that building techniques (like passive houses) have on the planet. 

In all offices, we had the same goal: persuade lawmakers to support proposed legislation that would promote energy efficiency. While our language changed depending on our audience, we were simply addressing two sides of the very same coin. 

Language is our primary path to shared understanding.

For all of the talking we do, it never ceases to amaze me how many missteps there can be on that path, even in seemingly straightforward conversations. (There's an entire show about such missteps tomorrow, as a matter of fact.) As misunderstandings can emerge between even the closest of friends, it’s no surprise that it can feel like “we” – whether defined by geography, race, gender identity, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, to name a few – are speaking different languages.

And in some ways, we are.  

A 12-minute TED talk by Robb Willer provides some fascinating insights into the differences in words that resonate along the political spectrum. For audiences toward the left, arguments based on equality, fairness, care, and protection from harm will hit home. Audiences who lean right will better connect with messages anchored in loyalty, patriotism, respect for authority, and moral purity.

While Mr. Willer posits that the political divide is actually “undergirded by a deeper moral divide,” I maintain that the difference is less divide and more prioritization; most of the values he lists are widely shared, but the weight we give them varies. That prioritization results from differences in how we see the world that can be boiled down to two fundamental questions:

1) Do you see the world as a place that is inherently dangerous or, putting aside a few bad apples, generally safe?

2) Do you see the world as a place of scarcity (such that not protecting what is limited could threaten your very survival) or a place of abundance (such that we can all share as there is plenty to go around)?

If you think about those two questions for a moment, I hope you’ll 1) see there are elements of truth in all responses; 2) understand why arguments that fail to account for how your audience sees the world fall as flat as Florida; and 3) remember that framing your arguments in a way that asks your audience to change not just an opinion but their deep-seated values makes as much sense as training for the San Francisco marathon in Miami (and yes, I know someone who was crazy enough to actually do that).

To paraphrase Robb Willer: Don’t speak into a mirror! Frame your arguments in a way that connects with your audience’s underlying values, even if those aren’t values you personally find most important.

Furthermore, don’t assume you’re the “good guy” (or the “good cop”). Generally speaking, people who have different views than you do are not evil, stupid, or anti-whateverinsultlazypeoplewanttothrowoutinsteadoftakingthetimeandenergytounderstand. If you’ve swallowed the narrative of division that the media is feeding us and don’t believe that understanding the “other” is possible, you need blueberries and cherries in your life.

We can foster understanding and even agreement - but only if we're speaking the same language.

For more on the two questions I set forth above, check out this 2011 blog citing research on moral psychology, this short piece citing the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences and linking to an episode of Inquiring Minds podcast, and this academic paper, in which I’d like to replace the “vs.” with an “and.”

(Additional photo credits: Israel palacio and Saketh Garuda on Unsplash.)

As always, I welcome your thoughts, questions, and critiques in the comments: