Seth Godin makes a great point about the words we choose when we are advocating (or marketing… aren’t they the same?). Seth outlines some of the problems inherent in the way that the global warming debate has been framed, starting with the term “global warming.” According to Seth:

Global is good.
Warm is good.
Even greenhouses are good places.

How can “global warming” be bad?

I’m not being facetious. If the problem were called “Atmosphere cancer” or “Pollution death” the entire conversation would be framed in a different way.

I have been thinking about framing a lot recently. A similar problem exists in the abortion debate. The right has coined the term “partial-birth abortion.” Who could be for a partial-birth abortion? And the term has been highly effective because even the left is forced to use the term when engaging in the debate. I wonder how the debate would turn out if the left refused to use the term - refused to reinforce the framing chosen by the opposition. I am not Seth and haven’t been able to come up with alternative word choices that are as effective as his “atmosphere cancer” example for global warming. But I think the problem is the same. Or perhaps its a mirror image - that is - “partial-birth abortion” is as graphic and as negative as “pollution death” and the left needs to not only shift away from focusing on the extreme procedure all together, but find more harmless sounding words to describe what is going on when a family decides to end a pregnancy.

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 2nd, 2006 at 12:36 pm and is filed under Advocacy, Marketing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.