▲ 102 points
back
103 comments
Hi all, I'm the person who wrote this. Thanks for this unexpected trip down memory lane, which is also an insight into how things have changed. Remember I wrote this more than 20 years ago when scripted service of any kind was new in the UK, and we really didn't interact with websites much or chatbots at all. Mission statements and suchlike were also fairly new, especially in public institutions.Evidently familiarity has made us more accepting of some things but even less so of others, as you'd expect. Anyway,it was fun reading the comments,so thanks and have a nice day
Now I'm wondering if the study of insincerity has become a recognized academic field. It would seem to be inherently cross-disciplinary, with elements of psychology, sociology and politics, in addition to the linguistic aspect.
Hi Debbie,
Amazing to read a response from you. As someone who's been working in marketing & Tech, I have to say that many things have indeed changed, except for the worse. Whereas before we've had an incipient Nicespeak phenomenon, I've noticed it grow larger and larger in various respects.
For what it is worth, I've learned about your article from Madeleine Bunting's "Willing Slaves" book [0], which I'm reading now and felt the need to read it in its entirety (edit: the article, that is); luckily Archive.org had it preserved for us.
> thanks and have a nice day
I’m choosing to read this as a wry nod to the present-day pervasiveness of nicespeak.
If you were asked to provide guidance for companies who wished to avoid using nicespeak, what recommendations would you provide? And do you have advice for situations where a company might want to emphasise/de-emphasise aspects of the truth to market itself?
Hi Debbie,
given you were at New Statesman, I am wondering if you had a chance to meet and interact with Christopher Hitchens? And if so, if you have an idea of what he would think about this subject?
What has changed? I would have guessed this article was written in 2017 at the earliest.
It seems to me that nicespeak is nothing more than our culture's embodiment of courtesy, or etiquette. Our society self-consciously strives to be egalitarian, so formality and honorifics sit poorly with us. However, unscripted social interactions are fraught with danger. They can easily become awkward or lead to misunderstandings. Etiquette provides a framework a person can operate within wherein you don't have to worry about what the other person will think or feel. This is particularly valuable in a business context, so our institutions strive to fabricate this framework.
There's nothing wrong with this, as long as everyone recognizes it for what it is. We harmlessly exchange stock phrases, like "how are you", to which the proper responses include "fine, and you?", or "not too bad, yourself?" or the like. The person who says "oh, terrible" and proceeds to tell you about it has violated the social contract and imposed a burden on the other party. The person behind the counter at the fast food restaurant doesn't want to have to think to say "I hope you enjoy that milk", or find some other way to close the conversation, so they're just as happy to say that stock phrase "enjoy your meal" and be done with you.
I think the author's chosen name for the phenomenon "Nicespeak" creates a cognitive distortion that muddies what I think her point is. She is not talking about being nice rather than being rude. Rather she is talking about being authentic and human rather than becoming an automaton channeling the will of the powers that are compelling your speech.
Her example of the fast food worker is they're channeling the brand of the franchise "whether or not they made sense in a given context". "The idea was to subordinate the personality of the individual speaker to a centrally designed corporate voice."
Her example of the workers in the public-private partnership of academia describes having to conform to the rules of the corporate information-hiding language game in order to compete with others for funding. "If they do not claim to be 'excellent', they will inevitably come out losers."
In these cases the casualties are authenticity, connection, a frank assessment of and confrontation with reality, and humanity. In lieu of them, we've created a network of symbols and signs overtop of existence that pretends to be true reality, but really distorts it to the benefit of the holders of power. This network of symbols comprises brands, mission statements, corporate personalities, metrics that yield to Goodhart's law, empty buzzwords and hype, etc, etc, etc.
I think that's what she's criticizing.
I don’t think that’s the main point of the article (though it is addressed).
The problem with Nicespeak is it becomes a mandatory form of expression. See, for example, mission statements at universities (TFA). Without these obligatory technocrat documents, universities will be stripped of funding and accreditation.
To provide a slightly more contemporary take, see the censorship/moderation debate in public discourse today. I think a direct line can be drawn between societal Nicespeak and our almost compulsive need to scrub social media et al. of anything sufficiently nonconformist.
<< But it seemed strange that instructions had been issued at all, and stranger still that they were generally obeyed.
It is, but when it is mandated it ceases to be courtesy ( it may still remain etiquette as that is mandated and enforced by society depending on definition used ); it becomes a forced behavior.
That said, I still prefer the example you gave. I used to cringe internally over forced small talk in US ( "how are you", "fine/great/would complain, but -- no one listens" response ), but I kinda argue it is better than the weird 'everyone is out to get me; don't talk to me' approach from the old country.
As always, but.. just because I prefer it now, does it mean I can reasonably "expect" it?
> We harmlessly exchange stock phrases, like "how are you", to which the proper responses include "fine, and you?",...
Q. How do you confuse an anglophone?
A. Answer, when they ask how you are.
I think the point is that we can distinguish ordinary civility from nicespeak. The latter is insincere, existing primarily as a means to reinforce a (usually corporate) power structure.
Interesting perspective! I'm not sure I agree with it, but I'm glad I read it.
> as a friend of mine observed when asked to speak at a conference on "pursuing excellence in facilities management": "Who the hell would pursue second-rateness?"
Most people, actually – though few are so bold as to announce it. That said, I agree with the point: although individuals may not pursue greatness, public institutions always should.
“So how do you hire more B players?”[1]
[1] https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...
Public institutions need to pursue competence. If they could effectively do the things they are supposed to, we'd be mostly pretty good.
My rule is that whenever something has “excellence” in the title it’s 100% BS. Works like a charm.
Excellence is overrated for anything you don’t really really care about. The price to get to the next level of noticeable quality goes up really fast after a bit above average.
The alternative to pursuing excellence is not usually pursuing second-rateness, but simply not pursuing excellence. It's a lack of effort, rather than misdirected effort.
> in a world where a notice can announce in all seriousness: "In order to better serve you, we are closed this afternoon."
This is so spot-on. I am not sure this qualifies as "nicespeak" but if you pay attention you will hear this type of messaging everywhere. As we hear it we seem to just nod along and miss the fundamental irony of it.
"Please listen closely, as our menu options have changed. Did you know you can check your account balance, order checks, apply for a loan, or get a new debit card online? Visit w w w dot your bank name dot com forward slash banking for more information." ---> Please hang up before we actually have to make somebody pick up the phone
"Due to the ongoing pandemic, for the safety of guests and staff we will not make up your room unless requested" ---> Thank god, we can cut our cleaning staff
"Due to the ongoing drought conditions, water will only be served for customers who request it" ---> We wash half as many glasses this way
COVID in general was a great excuse for a lot of companies to do something they've wanted to do for years (reduce business hours, cancel contracts, cut staff, reduce stock on hand, etc.) while acting like they're doing the world a favor.
A few years ago I got a letter from my bank which said something along the lines of "At [bank], we understand that your banking needs evolve over time. That's why from [date], we will be moving you from a graduate account to a regular account".
The graduate account and the regular count are exactly the same except that the regular account has extra fees. Apparently over the years I had evolved a need to pay fees. Good thing my bank were looking out for me.
Just like shaking hands was a tradition to show that you hold no weapons, speaking nicely is a social signal that you mean no harm.
Both peace signals can be ruses, but if you approach with a closed fist or a sharp tongue, it makes a peaceful interaction more challenging.
Verbal battles are not like physical battles. The later lead to harm and death, the former - to some form of truth.
Great read, until the conclusion that Irony and Sarcasm are better weapons against Nicespeak than George Orwell's plain English is.
Getting people to speak in vitriolic Opposites is no better than making them speak empty Compliments...
I agree. The correction to "fake sincerity" isn't "ironic sincerity" - it's just regularly sincerity and old-fashioned earnestness. The article really dates itself with that assertion, because this was written right before the internet saturated every exchange with holier-than-thou sarcasm and multiple layers of irony. Now that we've lived through phenomena like the Wendy's Twitter account and cutesy 404 pages, this just seems terribly off-base.
I agree. Both irony and sarcasm are purely emotion based "arguments" and often just socially acceptable lies. Ok, so now you made some service worker feel bad for no reason. They are kind of paid for that, but still.
And with that, I find the language author complains about better. If it achieves nothing I just ignore that.
I don’t think sarcasm has to be vitriolic. In response to the example of a store announcement that says “in order to better serve you, we will be closed this afternoon”, one might respond with “I feel better-served already!” There’s hardly any vitriol, and the absurdity of the situation is promptly exposed.
"We should try", "may be ... effective"; propositions are not hard conclusions.
The biggest whiff for me in this essay is the idea that people aren't acutely aware of the fakeness. It would be like her acknowledging no irony in holding the Rupert Murdoch Professorship in Language and Communication.
> Getting people to speak in vitriolic Opposites is no better than making them speak empty Compliments...
Whereas policing their emotions to make sure they feel the right thing when they make words . . . ew!
You put that better than anyone else could have!
;)
I agree about things like mission statements being rather silly and tedious, particularly in a corporate context where, as the author notes, the only real mission is to make money for shareholders. In fact I think a mission statement is marginally less pointless in the context of a public institution because, frankly, it's not always clear what the end goal of a lot of those institutions are.
I don't really see the problem with this, however:
> What, for instance, was the mysterious "quality" that we discussed at every meeting? What did people mean when they spoke earnestly about "aims and objectives" and "learning outcomes"?
If people are discussing "quality" I presume they are referring to quality of output, ie, you want whatever good or service you are delivering to be good, not bad. And knowing the aims, objectives and outcomes of meetings, projects, etc, is absolutely a positive thing.
There is no "fake sincerity" as far as I can see. There is politeness - sure, maybe it is fake politeness (discounting the possibility that your server actually wants you to enjoy your meal). But it's still better than rudeness which is quite often the alternative.
Frankly it sounds as though the author is simply annoyed at (i) the private sector, for being the private sector, and (ii) the public sector, for looking to introduce the same focus on customer service and accountability that has long been present in the private sector.
Very well timed post! The author really should produce an update for the new millennium.
I was just ranting about this yesterday, after having to endure a chat session w/ a "customer care associate".
The blatantly patronizing platitudes are really rudeness with flowers, and highlight the corporations use of exploited offshore call center workers as a human shield against the frustration of their customers.
I'd also be curious to know about the tech of delivering "We're so sorry for your inconvenience, thank you for your patience..." messages automatically after certain periods of quiet in the chat channel.
How many other patronizing platitudes are delivered automatically? Or with single click buttons on the "care representative's" console?
Does anyone actually like these interfaces?
Do people really want a bot to kiss their ass while they're trying to report a broken product?
Someone seems to think so...
And some terminology is so fun when they are essentially messing over you. Mandatory gratuity, hmm why not just call if service-charge? Or just directly include it in price and not even mention it?
Irony and satire are not effective against Nicespeak because those who engage in it are either evil or stupid. The evil know what they are doing and will meet you with hostility for being called out. The stupid will react with confusion, frustration, and ultimately hostility for your failure to engage with them in the pleasantly appeasing mediocrity which it requires.
See The Endgames of Bad Faith Communication https://consilienceproject.org/endgames-of-bad-communication... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30997666
Recently I've been encountering more and more service workers who are AMAZED at my INCREDIBLE and AWESOME choice from the menu.
Until now I didn't think I had any sort of special ordering skills. I mean, they hand me a menu and I have no choice but to select 2-3 items from said menu. Just like everyone else. But I've come to realise that MY particular choice of those items is somehow better than the common man. I have a skill that was previously untapped and has only now come to light.
SUPER!
This is timely. One of the fascinating things about chatGPT is its facility with precisely this kind of language usage.
The trite ‘nicespeak’ phrases and word choices all contribute precisely zero additional information content or value; that they can be convincingly simulated by the LLM just picking the most appropriate next token suggests honestly that that’s also exactly how they’re employed by humans - just as meaningless padding around the core message.
I see a lot of people looking at GPT outputs and saying things like ‘this is great it can take my three bulletpoints and turn them into a complete presentation script!’ - to me that suggests you should skip the presentation and just send a text with the three bulletpoints.
GPT is great at adding this performative ‘packaging’.
I really hope what that teaches us is we don’t need to waste time with the packaging in the first place.
It seems like the problem is not on Nicespeak itself but more on the power structure that enforce such style of communication. Nicespeak itself feels like an essential lubricating part of the language but what makes it Nicespeak and not "nice words" is the authority.
And it continues with overseas call center workers who blather about how much they “understand“ your concerns, but in fact do not. Or how sorry they are “you’re experiencing this this problem” and “understand how important your return of the wrong size socks is to you”.
Sheesh
Do we need customer end bot tools to maintain any hope of interacting with corporations on equal footing?
I couldn't help but think of one of Carlin's acts while reading this - Advertising.
To some extent, nicespeak is the shibboleth of the middle class.
A few don't have to speak it, and many never learn. They usually stand out in professional settings
I'm a little confused here and I'm sure I'm missing the point. This article seems to argue (and some comments here) that being rude should be normal? Why? Why wouldn't we be nice to customers for their business?
On the other hand, hasn't bullshit/passive-aggressiveness/etc been always called out?
My un-favorite non-pology language is "I'm sorry you feel that way."
The purpose of Newspeak was to bypass the rational faculty and trigger an emotional reaction in the listener (as well as confining the speaker to the appropriate emotional state). The purpose of Nicespeak is the same.
Learning accent, idioms and cultural references were always parts of learning a language or judging how you learned that. Even years ago and in normal language class lessons.
Watching entertainment or reading books were always part of that. And my friends going for American universities 20 years ago were memorizing cultural references idioms etc along with unusual words and what not. Cause it was a on the test.