How language frames topics, including the classification systems of science, is a powerful process. By selecting some aspects of a topic, we make them more salient, promoting a particular perspective, diagnosis, solution, interpretation. As marketers and politicians well know, this process is highly effective in persuading us to a way of thinking and acting.
Robert Entman, in his 1993 article on framing, identifies that frames have at least four locations in the communication process ( pp. 52-53):
- The communicator: by “making conscious or unconscious framing judgements in deciding what to say, guided by frames.”
- The text: frames are “manifested by the presence or absence of key words, stock phrases, stereotyped images, sources of information, and sentences that provide thematically reinforcing clusters of facts or judgements.”
- The receiver’s thinking: is guided by frames, and conclusions reached “may or may not reflect the frames in the text and the framing intention of the communicator”.
- The culture: which is “the stock of commonly invoked frames”.
After illustrating how language choices make a difference, I argue that some skills terms do matter, because they are seriously flawed, particularly the ‘soft’/’hard’ binary. This distinction is embedded in our “stock of commonly invoked frames”, but needs to be removed from circulation by communicators, particularly policy workers, academics, researchers, consultants, and think tanks.
The power of framing
How professions define and classify is a form of framing – a language choice that identifies, distinguishes, and provides a certain way of seeing. Forestry and ecology provide examples.
German forester Peter Wohlleben writes in his book The Heartbeat of Trees: “Ranking the natural world and scoring species according to their importance or their superiority seemed to me outdated. It distorts our view of nature and makes all the other species around us seem more primitive and somehow unfinished. For some time now, I have not been comfortable with viewing humans as the crown of creation, separating animals into higher and lower life-forms, and treating plants as something on the side, definitively banished to a lower level.” (p. 98)
Referring to Emanuele Coccia’s thinking expressed in his book (as published in English) The Life of Plants, Wohlleben explains Coccia’s view that our biological classifications are not grounded in science. “They are strongly influenced by theology and are dominated by two ideas: the supremacy of the human race and the world as a place humans must bend to their will. And then there is our centuries-old compulsion to categorize everything. When you combine these concepts, you get a ranking system that puts humankind at the top, animals in the middle, and plants way down at the bottom.” (pp 98-99) Wohlleben’s preference is for science to categorise species one beside the other. “That would still allow an order, a system of sorting, without imposing any kind of a hierarchy.” (p. 99)
The language of a discipline or profession can influence how a topic is thought about and discussed. Wholleben explores how this influence works in forestry. Foresters call the intervention of cutting down huge trees as harmless-sounding ‘thinning’. (p. 107) Foresters believe that trees fight each other for resources, yet Wholleben spends much of his writing explaining how trees live together. According to Coccia, “nature is not a war zone. On the contrary, it is characterized by solidarity.” (p. 110)
Wholleben describes how forestry colleagues are outraged when he compares foresters with butchers. “But,” he writes, “what is felling a tree if not slaughter? The only difference is that a tree is killed, not an animal. If we know from the latest research that beeches and oaks are also capable of feeling pain, then it makes sense to use the same terms we use for animals.” (p. 116) “What we need, therefore, are not new words but simply more honesty.” (p. 117)
One of the most insightful and profound articles on the impact of how we name things is that of George Monbiot, who wrote an article titled Natural Language, published in the Guardian, 9 August 2017. His focus is on the language we use to describe the living world. “We should,” he says, “stop using constipated terms to describe our relationship to it.” To make his point, Monbiot provides this analogy: “If Moses had promised the Israelites a land flowing with mammary secretions and insect vomit, would they have followed him into Canaan? Though this means milk and honey, I doubt it.So why do we use such language to describe the natural wonders of the world?”
UK examples illustrate this point: reserve, environment, and describing animals and plants as ‘resources’ or ‘stocks’. Monbiot makes the further point that: “Our assaults on life and beauty are also sanitised and disguised by the words we use,” such as ecologists referring to ‘improved pasture’ when meaning land covered only with plants suitable for grazing, or ‘natural capital’ for nature. This is a similar point to that made by Wohlleben about foresters’ language.
Monbiot links his comments to the framing power of language, including shaping our perceptions, encoding values, reinforcing a worldview. He wonders why those seeking to protect the living planet “so woefully fail to capture these values in the way they name the world?” And here’s the crux of the matter: “Those who name it own it.” Here Monbiot is mainly talking about scientists, but he could be talking about consultants, policy makers, politicians.
Monbiot suggests “professional ecologists should recruit poets and cognitive linguists and amateur nature lovers to help them find the words for what they cherish.” As an example, he suggests that we “… abandon the term climate change and start saying ‘climate breakdown’. Instead of extinction, let’s adopt the word promoted by the lawyer Polly Higgins: ecocide.”
Paul Warde et al in their book, The Environment, A history of the idea, sets out, beginning in 1948, how the idea of the environment came to be and its consequences. Their work explains how a new term can create a new space for contestation, creativity, and debate.
The authors conclude from this story that the issue is about who is telling the story, from where and about whom. (p. 179) They write: “The whole history of the environment that we have presented in this book indicates that the history of a concept is indeed closely related to the development of expertise, of institutional power and dominant imaginaries, and political influence.” (p. 169)
These writers provide four valuable ideas that apply to skills discourse – how skills are distinguished, categorised, prioritised, discussed. These are:
- Rather than specifying or implying a hierarchy, skills could be categorised “one beside the other”, that is, as equally important and interrelated. (Wholleben)
- More honesty would be useful in acknowledging the inherent biases in skills discourse. (Wholleben)
- That “those who name it” (i.e skills) own these biases and acknowledge the flaws in skills discourse. (Monbiot)
- That more work is done to reveal “who is telling the story, from where and about whom” when it comes to the language of skills. (Paul Warde et al)
What are some of the flaws in our skills discourse?
A popular form of framing is to use a binary: good/bad, up/down, east/west. Binary distinctions give the illusion of clear-cut differences that explain some aspect of life. Something falls into one or the other of the two options. They are black-and-white, no room for grey, no room for seeing the similarities or the gradations and overlaps.
Binary distinctions dominate skills discourse. The most common ones are ‘soft’/’hard’; technical/non-technical; specialised/generic.
The ‘soft’/’hard’ distinction is the most unhelpful, misleading, and erroneous binary in skills discourse. Its flaws are many, but the main ones are:
Imprecise: There is no agreed definition of what ‘soft’ skills are. What skills are categorised as ‘soft’ is a moveable feast, covering a diverse mix of important skills, attitudes and behaviours. While many consultants, academics, researchers and individuals unhelpfully use the terms ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ skills, often unquestioningly, this is not a sound reason for its continued use.
Inaccurate: Typically, ‘soft’ is used to refer to communication and interpersonal skills, implying these skills are light-weight. Describing them as ‘non-technical’ or ‘intangible’ further implies, inaccurately, that they require little effort and no special knowledge. Further, so-called ‘soft’ skills are falsely contrasted with equally inaccurate ‘hard’ skills on the basis that the latter are observable, learnable and measurable, qualities claimed, inaccurately, as not shared by ‘soft’ skills.
Gender-biased: Career decision-making is a highly complex interaction of ideas and influences from multiple sources. Research confirms that children form gender-based ideas about careers early in life, and that the media feeds ideas about what work is suitable/unsuitable for women and men. So-called ‘soft’ skills are not the preserve of girls and women. They are not female or feminine skills, nor are they less demanding than other skills. Everyone needs to build communication and interpersonal skills, regardless of career choice.
Confused with personality traits: ‘Soft’ skills may also be equated with personality traits which is confusing and inaccurate, with an implied privileging of ‘hard’ technical skills.
Employers don’t ask for ‘soft’ skills: Summaries of skills sought by employers may claim that they value ‘soft’ skills, but any scan of job advertisements shows that employers don’t actually seek ‘soft’ skills. They specify the skills they seek, such as customer service and problem-solving skills. Collectively calling these skills ‘soft’ is a framing imposed on this information by the writer and/or researcher.
Ignores complexity of skills: Binaries perpetuate a false idea of separateness and unequal value. Yet skills use, even in the most high’ tech jobs, is based on using multiple skills simultaneously in situations ranging from the straightforward to the highly complex. Take communication as an example of a ‘soft’ skills category. This is an umbrella term that encompasses many sophisticated skills and for which there are training courses and degrees specialising in specific communication-related professions. It would be a rare find to identify a job that doesn’t involve using specific verbal and/or writing skills, including negotiating, influencing, collaborating, cooperating, teamwork, supervision and customer service.
Ignores interrelatedness of skills: People use their communication skills in tandem with other skills, such as problem-solving, judgement, cultural awareness, and ethical nous, and draw on knowledge, such as relevant law, safety requirements, and mechanical details to conduct their work tasks. The ‘soft’/’hard’ binary may seem like handy conceptual shorthand, but they reduce complexity and sever more nuanced analysis of how skills are interrelated and equally valuable.
The words we choose to define and distinguish make a big difference to what we perceive, how we think and talk about a subject, and what action is taken. It can be contentious to query taken-for-granted practice. Much is made of the need for 21 century skills, yet apart from specific technological changes, most of the skills needed today are not specific to this century. They may involve tools, knowledge and applications that are different from the past, but in essence, are not literally new.
How to remove the flawed ‘soft’/’hard’ binary from circulation
By continuing to use seriously flawed language like the ‘soft’/’hard’ binary, we do everyone a disservice. Without accurate skills language, people struggle to identify their skills and how they might apply in the workplace. Workforce challenges, like skills shortages, will continue so long as some skills are privileged over others.
We need to take the ‘soft’/’hard’ skills binary out of circulation. There are alternatives to using ‘soft’ skills, including:
- When discussing specific skills, use specific skill words, like communication skills, problem-solving skills, interpersonal skills.
- When grouping skills that relate to working with people, use social or interpersonal skills and use this term consistently.
- When discussing or referencing other reports and research on skills, avoid adopting or repeating any use of ‘soft’ skills. Even saying “so-called ‘soft’ skills” keeps the term in circulation.
Read more articles about Rethinking Skills Discourse: A new narrative.
Dr Ann Villiers, career coach, writer and
author, is Australia’s only
Mental Nutritionist specialising in mind and language practices that help people build flexible thinking, confident speaking and quality connections with people.
Read free articles on these topics