Words Shaping Social Change

I recently had the opportunity to work with a nonprofit exploring an important question: Is it better to say we’re Nonpartisan, Bipartisan, that we work across the aisle, or that we work across party lines?

The discussions I’ve had with strategists and writers about the words we use reveal how even small differences between similar words can create vastly different perceptions among readers. You can go from friend to foe with a seemingly innocent word choice. Use language that’s too formal and you create unnecessary distance. Use euphemistic language and people may assume you’re not willing to have the hard conversations—that you’re shielding the truth or simply following the crowd with buzzwords.

The Frameworks Institute has spent the last 25 years researching how people think and communicate about social issues, and I often turn to them in my brand strategy research for nonprofits. The way we communicate—through words and stories—shapes our understanding of social issues and influences the wider narrative and, ultimately, our actions. It reminds me of the adage: Your beliefs become your words, your words become your actions, your actions become your reputation, and your reputation becomes your destiny.

Voice, tone, and language—both verbal and visual—all create frames that influence how people perceive organizations, which is why we spend time on this in brand strategy to align beliefs, words, and actions into a cohesive and intentional experience. Organizations should consider both what they’re saying and what people are hearing and experiencing in how they communicate. This requires us to always be looking at the big picture and the minutiae simultaneously. The frames are complex, but that’s also one of the most exciting aspects of developing a brand’s strategy.

Frank Luntz (I know, I know, strange choice) makes an interesting point about this in Words That Work: “Tell someone ‘two plus two,’ but let him put them together himself and say ‘four’—and he is transformed from a passive observer to an active participant.” Sometimes the words and frames that nonprofits use—in an effort to create clarity—end up keeping audiences as observers rather than engaging them as active participants. Many times, it’s absolutely necessary to be explicit about complex and interconnected systems in order to set the stage for their understanding. And once that’s been established, it’s important to help them see how those systems are present in their own lives.

But let’s get back to the original question: Bipartisan? Nonpartisan? Or something else?

My recommendation has been to avoid using signaling language to describe an organization at its core. Loaded words and phrases can bypass our reasoning process and trigger emotional responses. They can create surface-level perceptions but without leading audiences to a deeper understanding. A word like “bipartisan” may be accurate, but it also subtly reinforces the two-party system as the only legitimate way to navigate policy-level solutions. Some words make it difficult to imagine alternatives to our current systems. Some words move us forward, and some keep us right where we are. Could there be a better frame?

A nonprofit’s brand strategy is ultimately shaped by how it connects with people through shared values, universal human truths, deeply-held beliefs, and a clear vision for the future. For example, rather than saying “we advocate for justice,” an organization might say “we’re working to ensure every family has access to safe, stable housing.” This approach helps people envision concrete change rather than abstract concepts and creates a simple, universally understood argument.

There’s a balance here. We communicators often assume audiences understand terms like “advocacy” or what it means to “create a just and resilient society.” To many in the public, these come across as sector-speak. They’re inside words, not external communications. And they can create more distance instead of shared understanding.

When you’re ready, take a look at the language—the specific words—that your organization or the organizations you trust use. Consider:

• What does the language assume people universally understand?
• Which words create forward momentum and which ones reinforce current systems?
• How can we replace signaling words with language that connects through values and shared vision?
• What concrete future state are we helping people imagine?