“Soft language” takes the life out of existing

“Slay!” “Valid crash out.” “Pop off, queen!”

Some words can be identified with certain age groups. Other words are altered to avoid offending people.

George Carlin’s 1990 special, titled “Doing It Again,” coined the term “soft language” in his stand-up comedy, describing the words that were sterilized over time.

“I don’t like words that hide the truth … words that conceal reality,” Carlin said. “I don’t like euphemisms.”

Carlin uses the transition from “shell shock” in World War I to “battle fatigue” decades later to “operational exhaustion” to “post-traumatic stress disorder” (PTSD).

Today, we hear “differently abled” instead of “disabled.” Died became “deleted” (or in the case of the FBI, “neutralized”).

So, where did soft language come from?

Political correctness emerged from leftist circles in the ’70s and ’80s and made its way to the corporate world in America.

The term "politically correct" originated in Marxist-Leninist vocabulary after the 1917 Russian Revolution, initially referring to strict adherence to the Communist Party's policies. In the United States, it became associated with debates between communists and socialists, often used to accuse individuals of dogmatism.

During the 1970s, it was adopted by activists on the New Left and in social movements as a form of self-parody, often used ironically to challenge the social power of language. Later, it evolved into a term used by conservatives to criticize sensitivity or censorship on the left.

Whether or not people agree with these terms, the use of soft language translates into politically correct terms that illustrate the divide it causes between people and reality. People clash not only on differing beliefs, but also on how they express their thoughts.

In other words, we talk past each other.

Enjoy what you're reading?
Signup for our newsletter

Why does this matter? Words are just words. They have no meaning.

Wrong.

Words are how we interact with reality – or don’t. Often, these words are used to shield people from the truth or, in some cases, from responsibility. The irony of soft language is that people are sensitized to use brutal, direct language for less serious matters, whereas nicer, more palatable phrases downplay difficult topics.

When politicians reference “collateral damage” in a crime or natural disaster, it’s less effective than “civilian deaths.”

Some see politically correct language as inclusive; others see it as evasive. Either way, it’s still a form of soft language.

Language associated with being "politically correct" – such as using gender-neutral or inclusive terms – is a form of soft language. Both approaches use careful word choice to soften the blow.

This way of speaking – especially with the overlap of soft language and political correctness – sidesteps both the weight of the truth and the responsibility of delivering it. No one in corporate America wants to be liable for saying what they mean.

Your last company didn’t fire you … you were laid off. It doesn’t matter that both result in the same outcome – removal from the workplace outside of one’s free will.

Hospitals don’t report a patient dying; they cite a “negative outcome.” Politicians avoid admitting they raised taxes by calling it a “revenue enhancement.”

On social media, people say someone was “unalived” instead of “killed” to dodge getting blocked by the algorithm. These phrases soften the emotional punch or shield institutions from liability, but they also blur our ability to grapple with the reality underneath.

Are we using words to clarify reality, or to cushion it? If the latter is true, should we feed into people’s increasing sensitivity to the raw truth?

Maybe we’re more capable of hearing the truth than society gives us credit for.

zimmer82@miamioh.edu

Josie Zimmerman is a junior studying journalism and art therapy. She is involved with Cru (Campus Crusade for Christ), Bridges International and MU Kababayan, and enjoys drawing and journaling in her free time.