And what may weasel words be? Why weasel words are words that suck all the life out of the words next to them, just as a weasel sucks an egg and leaves the shell.
—Stewart Chaplin
I have finally lost all patience for weasel words. I react viscerally when I see people unnecessarily injecting ambiguity and uncertainty in their writing. And I feel a sort of catholic guilt when I catch myself doing it.
This feeling is not rooted in a preference for clear thinking, nor is it a disdain for ambiguity or lazy thinking. It has more to do with integrity. I am thinking about the kinds of words that create distance between yourself and what you say. This distance removes accountability. And this is why cowards use them all the time.
For example, sociologists use weasel words all the time to insinuate causal claims without having to commit to them—e.g., ‘affect’, ‘influence’, ‘shape’, and so on. Or they will describe someone or some policy as being ‘complicit with’ or ‘enabling’ something bad instead of describing them outright as doing something bad.
This feeling is not widespread. We are also told that injecting uncertainty or ambiguity into our writing is a mark of caution and humility, not cowardice. Hedges are a marker of polite speech. And American sociologists value politeness above all else (“We are not rude like the economists!”).
Injecting uncertainty and ambiguity in the things you say creates the image of humility and politeness. But it also insulates you from being wrong. (“A feature, not a bug”). You will never be wrong unless you make a commitment.
Do not be a coward.
Say what you mean. Bear witness. Iterate.
John M. Ford, “De Vermis”.1
Footnotes
Taken from this syllabus.↩︎