Loaded language creates loaded relationships. When we say a person is ‘in denial’ or ‘lacks insight’, we are saying their self-assessment is wrong and that we are right. When we describe a person as ‘non-compliant’ or ’treatment-resistant’, we are saying that our assessment is right, and they are wrong.
And when we say we shouldn’t collude with a client – that we shouldn’t agree with, or buy in to, a way of thinking that we believe is unhelpful – it is almost always a one-way street. Because when they believe our way of thinking is unhelpful, we’re unlikely to think “ah, right, they just don’t want to collude with me.”
Yet there’s so much that we don’t know that we don’t know. We do lack insight into other people’s lives and inner worlds. We’ve all ‘done our own research’ or disagreed with a professional’s opinion on what they think is best for us. And there’s a good chance we have all, at some stage, asked people to buy in to a way of understanding that later evolves or is shown to be downright wrong. Chances are that we’re still doing it now.
When we bring our language back to basics we can choose more factual and neutral words. Rather than ‘denial’ or ‘lacks insight’, we can say that they see it differently or have a different understanding of what is happening. We can note that someone doesn’t want a specific treatment or would prefer a different option.
Instead of ‘not colluding’ we can choose to engage without agreeing with everything each other says. This is not the same as ‘agree to disagree’, which has a sense of reluctant compromise or finality to it. It’s more of an acceptance that we have different perspectives. And that may or may not change.
Finding neutral language isn’t about avoiding discomfort or disagreement. It’s about accepting reality while taking a step back from our own interpretations. Which helps us to find the common ground that does exist and discover ways forward together.
Helen Mentha 