The language of diplomacy
Jan 27th 2011, 10:06 by Bagehot
WHAT has happened to the language of diplomacy? It is reported in London that William Hague, Britain's foreign secretary, has been shocked by the poor spelling and jargon-infested English he finds in notes from his diplomats. Conservative commentators, such as Charles Moore of the Spectator, detect a broader slippage of good manners and education across the civil service. That may be so—Mr Moore, an unusually polite man by the standards of his trade—is shocked to learn that Labour ministers rarely sent letters of thanks after official visits, leaving younger civil servants at a loss when asked to draft such notes for their new, Conservative bosses.
Friends of mine inside the Foreign Office concur with this gloomy assessment of their youngest colleagues, who—though bright and often expensively educated—struggle to write English with clarity, let alone flair.
I wonder if blaming the juniors is entirely fair. My experience is that even rather grand figures in the world of foreign policy have been steeped in jargon and human resources gibberish for ages. I was recently at a private meeting for diplomats and foreign policy types (I had better not say where). It was a festival of what one ambassador I know calls "bullshit bingo", with certain buzzwords coming up again and again.
The worst? "Going forward" has infected the world of diplomacy just as thoroughly as the world of business, as has talk of "stakeholders". I am alarmed at the rise and rise of "piece", as in "when it comes to the trans-Atlantic relationship, we need to focus on the energy piece, and not just the strategic piece." For that matter, "strategic" now seems to mean little more than "important". I am told that "granular" is increasingly popular, and means the opposite of "big picture".
I have yet to recover, though, from a comment made about a recent international summit. It was, we were told, marked by few "benchmarkable deliverables."
Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2011/01/foreign_policy_english
Note: Death Sentence: The Decay of Public Language - Don Watson, is a good read. Buzzwords in the corporate world also include: commitment, enhance, flexibility, in terms of, outcome
Friends of mine inside the Foreign Office concur with this gloomy assessment of their youngest colleagues, who—though bright and often expensively educated—struggle to write English with clarity, let alone flair.
I wonder if blaming the juniors is entirely fair. My experience is that even rather grand figures in the world of foreign policy have been steeped in jargon and human resources gibberish for ages. I was recently at a private meeting for diplomats and foreign policy types (I had better not say where). It was a festival of what one ambassador I know calls "bullshit bingo", with certain buzzwords coming up again and again.
The worst? "Going forward" has infected the world of diplomacy just as thoroughly as the world of business, as has talk of "stakeholders". I am alarmed at the rise and rise of "piece", as in "when it comes to the trans-Atlantic relationship, we need to focus on the energy piece, and not just the strategic piece." For that matter, "strategic" now seems to mean little more than "important". I am told that "granular" is increasingly popular, and means the opposite of "big picture".
I have yet to recover, though, from a comment made about a recent international summit. It was, we were told, marked by few "benchmarkable deliverables."
Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2011/01/foreign_policy_english
Note: Death Sentence: The Decay of Public Language - Don Watson, is a good read. Buzzwords in the corporate world also include: commitment, enhance, flexibility, in terms of, outcome
No comments:
Post a Comment