An adage in the justice world is that while our opponents have more money than we do, our power is derived from the people. These power differentials may be accurate. However, the language many advocates and organizers use quickly goes from an inspiring idea of how to tackle an issue to a sea of acronyms, jargon, and technical speak that divides them from their base.
They often develop straightforward and aspirational titles for campaigns but then boil the names down to an acronym only insiders understand. “Keep Our Neighborhoods Strong” turns into KONS (or the KONS campaign), which means nothing and hides what we’re trying to accomplish. The general public, or even new activists, have no idea what the campaign’s shorthand language means for at least a little while or perhaps not ever.
Jargon, which Oxford defines as “special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand,” confuses the base. At its worst, it creates a divide between the campaign “experts” and the movement’s followers. The first group is “in charge” of coming up with actions, while the second one simply participates in a campaign as told to them by those “in the know.”
Lastly, the insiders know complicated aspects of “the game.” They use words and phrases like: “engrossment,” “revisors,” and “first committee deadline,” which, again, shows that they know how to direct things; when others have some learning to do first.
I’m being a little harsh. Acronyms, jargon, and technical speak have their place. When campaign planners work solely with each other, the shorthand is helpful for efficiently talking about things.
But in every other instance, time and care need to be put into almost always speaking in a way that draws more people in. If parts of a potential base immediately feel lost, they will simply do as told, keeping their street smarts and creativity to themselves, robbing a campaign of potentially helpful resources.
