I came across a post on X today from a Human Givens tutor, and it reminded me of something we learned during our diploma course about the power of language and how it's often used by politicians to influence us. Specifically, we discussed nominalisations and how they are cleverly used in political speech to obscure meaning.
But why do politicians use such language, which can sometimes feel like babble or word salad? One reason is that it helps them distract the public from what’s really happening, whether it's a new tax, a controversial policy, or just general dishonesty. When politicians don’t want to be clear, they lean into abstract language, leaving us confused rather than informed.
Nominalisations are a key part of this tactic. A nominalisation is an abstract noun that refers to an idea, emotion, or state rather than something concrete
It turns dynamic verbs into static nouns, stripping away the action and clarity. For example, instead of saying "we decided," a politician might say "a decision was made," removing agency and making it harder to question the process.
Interestingly, nominalisations are also used in Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) and Hypnosis to create a light trance. When too many abstract terms are strung together, the brain can't quite process what's being said and starts to drift. This technique can be used intentionally to lull people into distraction or confusion, which makes it easier for them to miss the real message.
Politicians and influential figures often rely on nominalisations to soften their statements and make them harder to challenge. So the next time you hear a speech full of abstract, vague terms, pay attention to what’s not being said. You may just find that behind all the word salad, there's an agenda they're trying to hide.
Comments