It turns out that no one is “healthy” any more. The vernacular now contains words like ‘cholesterol level’ and ‘blood pressure’, ‘pain threshold’ and ‘central nervous system’, ‘intestinal flora’ and ‘viral infection’, ‘inflammation of the upper respiratory passages’ and ‘antibiotics’, ‘side effects’ and ‘compromised breathing’, ‘heart failure’ and ‘kidney failure’, ‘potassium deficiency’ and ‘reduced resistance’, and ‘chronic illness’ and ‘acute illness’. These terms were introduced into everyday language by disciplines such as health sciences, health economics, and health administration. As they transitioned into different contexts, their original technical definitions gave way to social interpretations in conversation.
In 1988, German linguist Uwe Pörksen introduced his groundbreaking work Plastic Words: The Tyranny of a Modular Language, detailing the rise and pervasive spread, particularly in the latter part of the 21st century, of certain words that possess remarkable flexibility yet lack substantial meaning. These words are frequently exploited by those in positions of authority to sway opinions, making it imperative for us to remain alert when confronted with “plastic words”.
One notable feature of plastic words is their integration into the global lexicon. Through their boundless universality, they create the illusion of bridging a void and meeting a requirement that was previously unfulfilled. Examples of such words in common usage include: development, welfare, resource, communication, progress, growth, information, strategy, process, exchange, planning, structure, value and system. Although these words can’t be easily defined, they wield a commanding presence that compels their acceptance and perceived indispensability. These words are often combined with one another or with supplementary terms to amplify their authority, as seen in phrases like “resource development”, “information society”, “strategic relationship”, “problem-solving strategy”, or “communication process”. Certain words align themselves into sequences almost autonomously, forming a series of hollow but impressive-sounding terms. When “problem” is paired with “strategy” (a term from warfare), the phrase takes on lethal implications. “One can see, therefore, how an almost-sentence such as ‘problem-solving strategy’ already is a fully stocked arsenal.”
The transmission of words across boundaries is the most noticeable feature of our current use of language. Originating from the realms of science, technology, and mathematics, these terms carry an air of authority, often silencing alternative expressions. While they maintain precise and specific meanings within scientific or technological domains, their clarity diminishes upon widespread adoption. They colonise and reshape even the minute regions of daily living.
Words like “innovation”, “integration”, “global”, and “security/safety” have become pivotal, versatile terms in the lexicon of the twenty-first century. Every day witnesses the emergence of new terminology aimed at conveying a sense of specialisation. “The ‘good’ and ‘bad’ gives way to the ‘progressive’ and the ‘backward’. The ‘modern’, ‘the current’, ‘the coming thing’ replaces the ‘old-fashioned’, ‘the anachronistic’, the ‘out-of-date’, and ‘ancient’. A word like ‘communication’ makes the alternatives — conversation, discussion and gossip — suddenly appear out of date.”
But rather than being akin to a liberating tool, these words resemble a mechanism of domination. “Both our public and our private use of language have thoroughly changed,” writes Pörksen. ‘Aggression’ didn’t exist as a term of public discussion, and people felt no need of expert guidance in living their daily lives. A typical headline like ‘Aggression: Why Even Small Children Bite and Hit’ on the cover page of a magazine would not have been possible 25 years ago.”
Plastic terminology has stealthily infiltrated our daily discourse, shaping our thought patterns. Pörksen’s characterisation of them as “plastic” alludes to their malleability and susceptibility to misuse and manipulation. It’s crucial to recognise the risks associated with using such terms, as they enable those in authority—be it corporations, governmental bodies, or other institutions—to manipulate their definitions. It colours the language of politics, of newspapers, and of public discussion.
And what is being left out? The phrase “internet economy”, for instance, should prompt us to ponder who is included in and excluded from this realm. In numerous countries worldwide, the elderly and economically disadvantaged face barriers to accessing the Internet, a reality often overlooked in discussions about it. Are they in the “Internet economy” or out of it? When you stumble upon plastic words, don’t just tiptoe around them: hack through the imprecision to challenge them with specific alternatives.