Jan 27th 2011, 10:06 by Bagehot
WHAT has happened to the language of diplomacy? It is reported in London that William Hague, Britain's foreign secretary, has been shocked by the poor spelling and jargon-infested English he finds in notes from his diplomats. Conservative commentators, such as Charles Moore of the Spectator, detect a broader slippage of good manners and education across the civil service. That may be so—Mr Moore, an unusually polite man by the standards of his trade—is shocked to learn that Labour ministers rarely sent letters of thanks after official visits, leaving younger civil servants at a loss when asked to draft such notes for their new, Conservative bosses.
Friends of mine inside the Foreign Office concur with this gloomy assessment of their youngest colleagues, who—though bright and often expensively educated—struggle to write English with clarity, let alone flair.
I wonder if blaming the juniors is entirely fair. My experience is that even rather grand figures in the world of foreign policy have been steeped in jargon and human resources gibberish for ages. I was recently at a private meeting for diplomats and foreign policy types (I had better not say where). It was a festival of what one ambassador I know calls "bullshit bingo", with certain buzzwords coming up again and again.
The worst? "Going forward" has infected the world of diplomacy just as thoroughly as the world of business, as has talk of "stakeholders". I am alarmed at the rise and rise of "piece", as in "when it comes to the trans-Atlantic relationship, we need to focus on the energy piece, and not just the strategic piece." For that matter, "strategic" now seems to mean little more than "important". I am told that "granular" is increasingly popular, and means the opposite of "big picture".
I have yet to recover, though, from a comment made about a recent international summit. It was, we were told, marked by few "benchmarkable deliverables."
In this blog, named after the dictionary-maker Samuel Johnson, our correspondents write about the effects that the use (and sometimes abuse) of language have on politics, society and culture around the world
Advertisement
Over the past five days
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
This annoys me to no end in state government. Though, used very sparingly, the word granular has its place if it's being used when its actually relevant. It should be referring only to very specifc, on the ground (this phrase is also just a bit jargony, but I can't think of a better term as inclusive for front line personnell, arrgh jargon again), and often anecdotal information to contrast this type of information with the aggregate and survey data that seems to make up the bulk of the information received by an agency. If illustrating this concept I'd be fine with it. If talking about a better survey, well, that's turning it into meaningless jargon.
I'm one of the "youngest colleagues" you mention, who, I suppose, you (and I, for that matter) would say "struggle[s] to write English with clarity," and is guilty of using "buzzwords."
Though, I always wonder what the generation or two before you thought of their "youngest colleagues." Did the older generation really see a bunch Shakespeares running around? Or did they look down at the youngins for butchering "their" English?
Oh, sense when would this blog advocate that language shouldn't evolve over time? I miss some words that have lost their means, but I am sure your grandfather misses ones you took from him, and his grandfather the same.
@Federalist Paper No. 30
Using "means" for "meanings"? "Sense" for "since"? You're certainly no Publius!
An example of diplomatic jargon that is now part of standard English is "cable".
The spam filter doesn't allow me to add a link, but you can find an interesting analysis if you look up "what is diplomatic cable" in the "Reflections of Diplomacy" blog.
Stakeholders is a lovely word, and the more I hear of it, the better. Why? Because I agree with its implicit ideology: that everyone affected by a decision deserves to be considered when that decision was made. Modern business began to go to hell when management decided, around 1980, that the only stakeholders who mattered were the shareholders (and quickly thereafter, that the only shareholders who mattered were themselves). If diplomats talk of stakeholders still, I praise them for it.
The phrases you deride have real meanings:
"Going forward" = "Now and in the future"
"Strategic" = "Paying off in the long-term but not in the next year"
"Benchmarkable" = "Such that one can determine what counts as progress"
"Stakeholders" = "Providers of capital, employees, customers, and citizens environmentally affected"
The phrases are good shorthand for real concerns. Don't blame the words if some people use them without having anything to say.
While there is no substitute for good English grammar and composition, the use of common phrases is simply the logical employment of efficient communication. The problem is one where efficient communication used for low-level discussions becomes projected onto more formal written communiques. In German, as in English, there's a formal written tone, and there's more informal conversational / "email level" usage. If I write formally, it's with formal English, which perhaps, many people do not receive proper schooling in, despite expensive and extensive educations. Perhaps, then, the first thing those in civil service who communicate with the outside out to do is take a formal composition refresher class, presuming of course that their supervisor is inclined to insist as much.
I think each "stakeholder" should be burned at his own.
@Federalist Paper No. 30
Hear hear.
Though some those examples may make my stomach churn, new metaphors lead to new meanings, expressions and words and as a result language wouldn't be very expressive without 'bullshit' or at least a bit of poeticism (some may argue about how closely the two are related). The whole reason etymologies can be so intriguing is because they involve a convoluted succession of metaphors piling on top of each other.
So although one may find texts written between 1920 and 1950 the most clearly written, and the style of those written in the last ten years or so often quite crass, and I do, one just has to get on with it and try to tug at the rope a bit in the hope of steering the direction of change in his direction ever so slightly.
In the 18th Century, Bishop Warburton wrote to a friend: "I was sure that this instance of his friendship to you would ever be warmly resented by you." In their day, 'resent' meant something along the lines of 'appreciate'. It slowly accumulated new meanings and lost old ones, till ended up meaning exactly the opposite today. It was probably bullshit.
Send the FCO complimentary copies of your style guide, to help them write letters using 'clear' English.
...
More blame for the 'SMS' generation? Please don't be offended, but as a journalist you practice your writing skills every day. And like all skills there is a discipline to becoming good at it; no-one is naturally brilliant, you have to be taught, or self-taught. Can you remember helpful feedback from your first sub-editor?
Also,
@Federalist Paper No. 30
Forget about language evolving over time. If your recipient fails to understand your message first time, you have failed.
I empathize. But think of what the French educated public has to contend with (not to mention Germans with their American infested public lingo): ministers and their acolytes misuse grammar and have little idea of syntax, the president often swears like "un charretier", TV announcers are unable to differentiate between vowels (so that a lady minister is said to have 'put her hand to the leg" - I let you guess the malaproprism), and "la cherry sur le top": they all use these very English "buzz" words you have listed atop a layer of managerial-speak that makes treading into Parisian dogs' proverbial stakes a "voyage de plaisir". Let's face it: we are no longer living in genteel times where correct grammar and fluid syntax and a wide vocabulary were a sure rampart against the great unwashed. I feel for Charles Moore whose chronicles I enjoy very mucj, but I fear no one really knows any longer how to pronounce his surname.
This is a pity. Wikileaks showed that American diplomats often write with a certain flair. I had assumed that their British counterparts would be that much better. Ah well.
To the defenders of jargon, I say yes, buzzwords theoretically allow for efficient communication, but in practice they are invariably used to create the impression of content and intelligence. After all, "synergy" is not only a real word, but an important business concept.
benchmarkable deliverables = outcomes that could be objectively / quantitatively measured and compared
Rather clunky, but it does have real meaning.
As a patriotic American occasionally forced to speak pussy-British English due to God’s single linguistic slip-up, I find it most efficient, when confronted with someone failing to understanding my diplomatic communications, to un-limber my hand artillery and start blasting. Isn’t that how Clive got India? ;-)
In business, the frequently used form of the word is "granularity". Sounds more like a call to focus on detail.
"Stakeholders" started taking hold around the nineties, and appears to be on the rise again, e.g. "responsible stakeholder".
But would it be a good report without a few bits of jargon thrown in, in addition to a helicopter view in the executive summary?
@John Cowan:
Modern business began to go to hell when management decided, around 1980, that the only stakeholders who mattered were the shareholders
Actually, you are seriously postdating the issue. Friedman's famous quip that "there is one and only one social responsibility of business - to use its resources (...) to increase its profits" comes from a 1970 magazine article, but the same idea had been less forcefully stated in his 1962 Capitalism and freedom.
And you can trace the gist of it much farther. After all, no-one had ever thought of accounting for social responsibility until the last quarter of the 20th century.
A refreshing 'piece'. One of the great pleasures I derive from reading the Economist is its flawless English.
@chinchip:
No.
ahhh the stakeholders, without them how else would we define the group of people that we aren't going to give any money to? that or its the term for the people who are going to be holding the stakes when the mob comes a calling.
haha ya john cowen, I'm sure it was 1980 when the novel idea that the people who ran the business should be accountable primarily to the people that own the business. and of course everything went to hell after that. what a strange view of history you posses.
I would be concerned if I was in Mr. Charles Moore’s shoes, or shall I say speaking in his tongue.
But such concern is moot because I think today’s English’s “proper-ness” is driven elsewhere, in the USA (American), in India (Inglish) and in internet computespeaknese, and to some extent in some unlikely or soon to be places like English spoken Africa, Singapore or China (Chinglish).
English, as with any phonetically based language, has been changing or evolving and will continue to change in its proper usage with the times as time proceeds. Such is the nature and there ain’t nothing you can do about that.