News and Insights

Beware of the Great Flattening

March 21, 2025

I’ve been reading a lot of Orwell lately. Not because I’m feeling the gravitational pull of his most popular works on dystopia and totalitarianism, but because he had a clear vision of the power of language to shape societies and promote—or hinder—human potential. It’s a theme that runs through many of my favorite Orwell short stories, as well as his famous novels, and is a relevant bearing point to help communicators make sense of today’s trends.

Words can serve as a window into the health of a society. The language we use, and the consistency of that use, can help us heal, reconcile differences, cast light on issues we would prefer to ignore and help people on the fringes of society see themselves as more welcome. Many of the institutions and organizations that achieve brand durability with their customers demonstrate their commitment to bedrock values through the consistent application of specific language in the programs they support.

By the same token, bad things usually happen when we impose barriers to communication. Wars start, relationships fracture, misdiagnoses occur, learning stalls. And yet, we tend to gravitate toward language that limits expression and promotes homogeneity rather than celebrating differences. That seems to be the moment we’re in now in the U.S. as the pendulum of language swings back toward exclusion.

Governments aren’t normally a leading driver for language in society, especially in the age of social media. But that changes when there’s a push at the national level to limit or ban words that may be seen as radical, which over the years has happened across the political spectrum. Problems arise when the language that’s censored targets particular groups—especially those seen as society’s weakest or least visible—or is intended to strip away efforts to level the playing field and improve communication rather than inhibit it.

Consider the growing list of words that have been recently stripped out of U.S. federal government literature, communiques and online content. By removing such terms as “discrimination” and “disparity,” we make it harder—and therefore less efficient—to describe the conditions that millions of Americans experience on a regular basis, fueling division and preventing us from identifying paths forward to some of our most intractable challenges. This is especially true for the way we communicate about health.

When common terms like “mental health” are excluded in government information sources, how are specialists expected to address the high rates of suicide that military veterans and many other Americans experience every day? If we intend to reverse the devastating rates of chronic disease and obesity in the U.S., what’s the most efficient way of confronting the root causes for those conditions if we can’t openly discuss the “social determinants” that often lead to people’s poor health? When people of color experience significantly higher rates of “bias” and “racism” by medical practitioners than white people—a well-documented and persistent issue—how can we realistically improve health outcomes by systematically disregarding the reality that countless patients experience?

In the push to find more efficient ways to communicate, the risk we face is that government efforts will trickle down through American society and influence how we all communicate. Call it the Great Flattening: guided by efforts to suppress language within government agencies, we begin to self-censor and become more comfortable with the companies and institutions in our lives demonstrating greater pliability with the language they use to articulate their value to us.

Orwell warns against this kind of homogenization, which seems to be the intent of limiting words that people use to identify and differentiate themselves, describe their state of health, or find ways of fitting into a world that feels inaccessible to them. By putting restrictions on the language we use and stifling diverse viewpoints, we risk perpetuating inequality and encouraging mediocre, conformist thinking. That’s hardly in the interests of companies and institutions seeking to position their products and services to meet the needs of a rapidly evolving and diversifying global marketplace where customers expect to see the brands they support demonstrate values that don’t bend with the political winds.

The rise of corporate social responsibility over the past thirty years has reinforced the importance of companies playing a greater role in society and defining profit beyond strict monetary terms. Organizations that have integrated purpose and societal benefits into their business models may now face a test: How will they communicate their values at a time when language intended to foster inclusion and representation is maligned? The answer may determine their brand durability in the years to come.

Originally published on O’Dwyer’s on March 21, 2025