Russell Conjugation is when someone chooses different words to describe something, depending on how favorable they want to be to the thing they are describing.
It is a form of “spin”, or emotive/emotional conjugation, which is used to convey a fact in a way that also conveys the speaker’s opinion of that fact.
HOW IS A RUSSELL CONJUGATION CONSTRUCTED?
The original Russell Conjugation format looks like this:
I X, you Y, they Z.
Where X is a word choice that paints the speaker in a positive light, Y is somewhat less generous to you, and Z paints the other person in a negative light.
You can call these positive, mild, or negative Russell Conjugates.
The key to understanding Russell Conjugation is that the exact behavior described in each of these examples is identical. But the words used to describe each behavior differ, depending on how the speaker wants his or her audience to interpret them.
Examples of Russell Conjugation:
- I stand up for myself, you won’t take no for an answer, she always needs to get her way.
- I am detail oriented, you don’t let anything past you, he is a nitpicker.
- I am thorough, you could benefit from streamlining your writing, they are a long-winded bore.
Russell Conjugations don’t always have to follow the “I, you, they” formula either. In fact, you’re more likely to encounter them in more subtle ways:
- A politician you support reconsidered the matter in light of new evidence, but the politician you don’t support flip-flopped.
- You negotiated boldly, but your coworker wasn’t being a team player.
- Your own child is self-assured, but the neighbor’s son is a brat.
If it seems slightly dishonest or hypocritical, it is! But if you keep an eye out for it, you may even catch yourself using Russell Conjugations from time to time. It’s human nature to subtly support the people we identify with.
WHAT MAKES RUSSELL CONJUGATION DIFFERENT FROM OTHER GRAMMATICAL CONJUGATIONS
Most other types of grammatical conjugation are used to clarify the meaning of a statement. One of the things that makes the English language so great is how rich it is with words, all having their own connotation and nuance.
But instead of enhancing language to communicate more clearly, people use Russell Conjugation to add bias to the facts of a situation. Usually in a way they hope will influence the audience to interpret the facts their way.
WHY YOU SHOULD CARE
It’s useful to be able to identify Russell Conjugation because:
- It can be used to manipulate you or the people you care about, and
- It will give you the ability to identify bias in news, writing, and conversation.
When you’re reading or hearing someone speak, you can pause and ask yourself “am I forming my opinion based on the facts of this situation, or on the opinion of the writer/speaker?”
REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES OF RUSSELL CONJUGATION
You don’t have to look further than the front page of mainstream news outlets to see Russell Conjugation in action. Here’s an example from the New York Times home page in May of 2021:
Note how the paper describes the conflict as “civil unrest”. Next to the article is a photograph of a huge explosion going off in the middle of a city.
Whatever the standard definition of “civil unrest” is, it’s likely gone past that point once buildings start exploding. Yet the Times chose to call it “civil unrest” as opposed to “armed conflict”, which would be more accurate. “Civil unrest” would be appropriate to describe a protest which has gone off the rails, not huge explosions going off in the middle of a city.
The use of the term “civil unrest” seems to imply that the conflict is less serious than what appears to be actually happening.
Here’s another one from Fox News, also from May of 2021:
Notice how Fox portrays immigration as a “crisis”, and the flow of migrants as a “surge” which is “swelling”.
The headline does not describe the events impartially. It doesn’t provide any numbers or attempt to let the reader decide whether it’s a problem. Instead, the language used makes the implied assumption is that immigration is a problem.
BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE HISTORY OF THE TERM
While the practice has probably been around as long as language, it became known as “Russell’s conjugation” after philosopher Bertrand Russell explained the concept in detail in a 1948 episode of the BBC Radio show The Brains Trust.
Russel used the following examples to describe the phenomenon:
- I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool.
- I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing.
- I have reconsidered the matter, you have changed your mind, he has gone back on his word.
MODERN USAGE
More recently, Eric Weinstein has given popularity to Russell Conjugations. He uses them to identify and critique modern politicized speech:
Weinstein’s tweet illustrates that the common term “political correctness” is actually a negative Russell Conjugate of the term “respectful speech”. They both mean the same thing. But to call a statement “politically correct” is to cast doubts on the motives of the speaker. It implies they are using certain language for political approval, instead of out of respect for another person or group.
If you understand this, you can use it to reframe any debates you may have about political correctness by referring to it as “respectful speech.” After all, it’s hard to imagine someone arguing against being respectful.
CONCLUSION
Now that you know what you need to know about Russell Conjugation, you’ll be able to spot it in the wild, and maybe in yourself. It should help you take the emotion out of the fact-finding process, and understand the world a little more clearly.
I help companies get started with SEO. Besides that, I make little movies, run, ski, and make entry-level attempts at surfing.
Read More:
- 2017 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC TERM OR CONCEPT OUGHT TO BE MORE WIDELY KNOWN?
- Emerson Green
- In the 1990s, pollster Frank Luntz demonstrated that Russell Conjugations have a significant effect on belief-formation. Eric Weinstein, describing Luntz’s research, writes “many if not most people form their opinions based solely on whatever Russell conjugation is presented to them and not on the underlying facts.” Luntz is responsible for popularizing the use of “death tax” over “inheritance tax” or “estate tax” in conservative messaging. As Weinstein reports, “the very same person will oppose a ‘death tax’ while having supported an ‘estate tax’ seconds earlier even though these taxes are two descriptions of the exact same underlying object.” One can be led to support a policy that they had opposed seconds earlier simply by using a different Russell Conjugation. The underlying reality doesn’t have to change in order to change how people feel about that underlying reality.
- Most of this nudging is unconscious. This means that masses of people can be influenced dramatically without many of them taking notice! Russell Conjugations change the game of objectivity — one cannot be an objective source of information without recognizing their power. One can provide factually accurate information, and still not quite attain a dispassionately objective or unbiased ideal.
- There are obvious implications here for anyone who’s interested in being a skeptic. Anyone who’s not aware of Russell Conjugations is an easier target for manipulation. It’s an empirical fact that human beings can be swayed to like or dislike the same idea based on subtle differences in vocabulary. Any one of us can be presented with two factually synonymous statements in different Russell Conjugations and walk away with entirely different impressions.
- The interests of the parties involved tend to determine their usage of Russell Conjugations. In fact, you can often reverse engineer interests based on how a message is constructed. This is obviously consequential in the realm of media, PR, journalism, and politics; but this idea applies to all language. The use of Russell Conjugations isn’t limited to those with a platform, but extends to all human beings — how we think of each other and ourselves, how we communicate with others, and how we navigate the social landscape.