by Amy Clark, National Housing Conference
For years, negative rhetoric around cycling infrastructure
hampered Seattle bicycle advocates’ efforts to improve safety and access for
cyclists. The simple changes they made to the way they framed the issue created
surprising wins—and lessons learned for affordable housing advocacy.
In a
post
on DC-area blog Greater Greater Washington, Michael Andersen of The Green
Lane Project describes the evolution and eventual demise of the term “
war
on cars” in Seattle. It’s a catchy catch-all phrase meant to categorize (or
demonize) efforts of planners and advocates to create more dedicated lanes and
other infrastructure for cyclists. The moment influential people and media
outlets started using the term, bicycle advocates took up arms, with mixed
results. Advocacy group Seattle Neighborhood Greenways was one organization that
decided to change the debate by changing the language.
 |
Evidence of success:
New bike infrastructure in Seattle’s
Capitol Hill neighborhood.
Photo by the author.
|
People-first language
humanizes instead of “otherizing”
Are you a driver? A transit rider? A pedestrian? A cyclist? In reality, you are
probably like most people and use multiple modes of transportation depending on
your purpose. But those labels serve to artificially divide people into
factions, pitting us against ourselves. In his post, Andersen shows that
Seattle Neighborhood Greenways deliberately changed the vocabulary to change
the tone. By simply adding “people who…” to each term, the listener is
subconsciously encouraged to think first about what unites us—we’re all
human—instead of about what divides us. Advocates for people with disabilities
have made great strides in getting us to put “people” before the “disability”
in our communications, and the housing community is making strides in using
terms like “people experiencing homelessness.” Maybe it’s time for us to talk
about “people who rent” instead of “tenants” or “renters.”
Junk the jargon
Jargon can be useful in the working world. Who hasn’t felt that particular
mixture of joy and relief when speaking to someone at a meeting or event who
“gets” our lingo? I’ve yet to meet a houser who could resist the tractor-beam
pull of a well-used acronym. But the flipside of jargon is that it excludes,
and when we bring our jargon out of the office and into the light of day, the
message we are silently telegraphing is that those who don’t understand are not
welcome in the conversation. Seattle Neighborhood Greenways threw out the RRFBs
and the hybrid beacons and brought in “safer ways to cross busy streets.” Safe
street crossings? I don’t need a
flashing
light to tell me that
this is
something that’s good for me. There’s similar thinking behind NHC’s effort to
refer to the LIHTC simply as the “housing credit.” What other jargon-junking
changes do you think the housing community could make?
More than words
No one would argue that simply switching up our vocabulary will get us the policy
wins we need to ensure everyone in America has access to a safe, decent,
affordable home. We need a bigger base of people who support this idea, and
ever-closer ties to the policy makers and thought leaders who can put solutions
into action. But if we want to build that base, we’re going to have to reach
beyond our circle of usuals and bring in those who don’t see themselves as
housing advocates. Cutting out the jargon and putting people first are two ways
we can use language to create a more inclusive housing movement.
