How to Talk Bridgey: Bridging Divides Through Language in Civic Engagement

As we approach significant political events, particularly the 2024 election, understanding the language we use becomes paramount. A recent study by Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement (PACE) explores how words associated with civic engagement—such as “democracy,” “community,” and “service”—are perceived across different demographics. The findings suggest that language not only conveys information but can also calm or deepen divides among various groups.

Key Findings from the PACE Study

1. The Importance of Language: The study highlights that terms used in philanthropy and civic discourse can either unite or alienate audiences. Words like “democracy” have become polarizing, with some groups seeing it as a liberal agenda, while others connect positively to it.
2. Bridgey Words: Among the 21 terms analyzed, “community” emerged as the strongest bridgey word, scoring highly across all demographics. Other effective terms included “service,” “belonging,” “liberty,” and “freedom.” These words resonate broadly, making them effective tools for fostering connection in conversations, especially post-election.
3. Context Matters: For terms that may have mixed reactions, such as “democracy,” the report suggests pairing them with more universally accepted words. For example, using “democracy” alongside “patriotism” can help engage conservative audiences while maintaining dialogue with liberals. Similarly, pairing “American” with “diversity” or “republic” with “equality” can enhance receptiveness.
4. Understanding Definitions: Different demographic groups often have varying interpretations of civic terms. For instance, white respondents tended to include historical references in their definitions of democracy, while younger and more diverse groups focused on inclusivity and equity. Recognizing these nuances can prevent miscommunication and foster better understanding.
5. Engagement Strategies: After the election, it’s essential to create a dialogue that prioritizes listening over asserting opinions. Questions like “What does democracy mean to you?” invite deeper conversations and help bridge gaps between perspectives.
6. Vagueness of Terms: Some terms, like “civic,” were found to be vague and open to interpretation. The report recommends providing context to clarify their meaning, enhancing their effectiveness in discussions about civic participation.
7. The Role of Philanthropy: As funders and nonprofits strive to strengthen democracy, they must be mindful of the language they use. The disconnect between how philanthropy views language and how the public perceives it can hinder efforts to foster civic engagement.

Practical Recommendations for Communication

• Use Unifying Language: Focus on bridgey terms when addressing diverse audiences. “Community,” “freedom,” and “service” are particularly effective in creating a sense of belonging and shared purpose.
• Pair Words Thoughtfully: To maintain engagement across political divides, strategically pair terms that resonate with different groups. This can help keep the conversation inclusive and productive.
• Encourage Elaboration: Invite audiences to share their definitions of civic terms. This practice not only enriches the conversation but also clarifies misunderstandings.
• Mind the Audience: Be aware of how different groups respond to language. Tailoring your message to resonate with specific audiences can enhance understanding and acceptance.
• Emphasize Context: When using potentially contentious terms, provide context to clarify meaning and mitigate negative reactions.

Conclusion

In a time of heightened political tension, the language we choose can play a critical role in either bridging divides or exacerbating them. By being intentional with our words and aware of their varied interpretations, we can foster a more inclusive and constructive civic dialogue. The insights from PACE serve as a valuable resource for anyone engaged in civic engagement efforts, especially as we navigate the complexities of post-election discussions.

Source: The Chronicle Of Philanthropy

This article was produced by The Nonprofit Atlas. Please email Hello@TheNonprofitAtlas.com for proper citation information should you wish to reference our work.