The Language of Sustainability: Why Words Matter

Excerpt from GreenBiz, 18 November 2009

'Whether we're working in internal management teams, or more broadly communicating to the public, to create a world that works for all, we need to change the language we use to frame our mindset. Language has real power. It communicates the concepts that shape thought, and, as such, we need to be vigilant about the terms we use. George Lakoff of the University of California at Berkeley has contributed some brilliant work on the framing of language...

In Lakoff's definition, "frames are mental structures that shape the way we see the world . . . the goals we seek, the plans we make, the way we act, and what counts as a good or bad outcome of our actions . . . Reframing is changing the way the public sees the world. It is changing what counts as common sense. ". . . Framing is about getting language that fits your worldview. It is not just language. The idea is primary - and the language carries those ideas, evokes those ideas."

In applying framing to the issues that many of us are typically dealing with, examples might include:

1. Change "natural resource management" to "regeneration of nature" or "natural resilience."

"Management" reinforces a false sense that we know exactly what to do and how nature is going to respond to our actions. We clearly have a wealth of knowledge on work with natural processes, and it is clear that our actions very often have unintended consequences, to due to the complexities of natural systems. "Resource" conveys that nature is something to be used, rather than our life-support system. As alternative terms, even restoration, a decent improvement, doesn't conceptually support the dynamic ongoing process that is ecology, but, rather, restoring to some static state. Terms like regeneration and resilience better illustrate the end goal of re-establishing the capacity to adapt, flexibility, and ongoing processes that can evolve over time.

2. Change "proper stewardship" to "proper interaction" or "healthy relationship," for the same reason as the above. Our relationship with nature is rightly a dynamic, two-way relationship, and so we shouldn't communicate that we are managing or stewarding nature.

3. Provide context for "sustainability," in that it means the ability to continue into the indefinite future by respecting the Earth's ecosystems, its limits, and providing space for the other beings on the planet to exist. Otherwise, we create perverse concepts like sustainable growth, as if we can continue unlimited growth in the face of limits.

4. Change any language that implies economic growth is always good. In an economy predicated on unsustainable uses of nature, is economic contraction and recession necessarily bad? Or is recession a necessary correction guided by the laws of feedback? During this relatively serious recession of 2008 and 2009, these questions never entered mainstream media or politics in a significant way, yet are the real questions that we as a society need to work through.

In general, we too often get bogged down in language and terms that have become polarized, have lost their meaning, and hinder honest conversation between intelligent people. Socialism, communism, big government, free-market, conservative, liberal - all these terms are merely labels. Rather than tag a given action under one or another of these terms, let's really look at the real social, environmental, and financial effects and impacts of a given action or policy. Use of these terms has very real implications for our communication and how it is perceived.

Indicators

Similar to language in its ability to convey concepts are indicators. By an indicator, I mean simply a measure or guide that indicates the state of something - we have economic, environmental, and social indicators to gauge progress, health, and other qualities, and we use indicators in nearly all fields of practice.

In general, we need to be very careful about the indicators we use to gauge progress and guide action and toward goals. Choice of indicator means that we believe the indicator is an accurate gauge for progress or health. And inappropriate indicators drive inappropriate action. Let's say your goal is to restore a river. One indicator you could use is the number of fish in the river. An action you could take to try to improve the indicator is merely stock the river with fish. That doesn't mean you have restored the river and brought about aquatic health. Choosing an indicator such as the pollution levels found in fish could drive drastically different action - restoring riparian zones, installing water pollution controls, etc. - and drastically different results...'