When National Public Radio recently reported that doctors were on the ground in Africa fighting Ebola, I couldn't stop thinking about the phrase "on the ground." Popularized during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars (remember "boots on the ground"?) and endlessly repeated ever since by reporters, pundits and opinion-makers, the phrase is patently ridiculous. Where else would doctors be but on the ground? True, they could be on a plane or at sea. But if they are already in Africa, it is a safe bet that they are on the ground.
"On the ground" is just one example of how jargon and clichés have captured the language. Jargon, author William Zinsser complained in 1985, "has inundated many areas of American life." The flood of jargon observed by Mr. Zinsser has not receded.
Today the flashy and vague terms of jargon continue to replace simple and clear language. For example, a woman is no longer "powerful," she is "empowered"; a person does not anticipate problems, she is "proactive"; an event is no longer "significant," it is "impactful"; a politician no longer "turns" from one issue to another, he "pivots"; and a change is no longer "caused," it is "driven." And, as most of us have had the misfortune to experience, jargon is rife in institutions, where commonplace ideas are dressed up in the finery of important-sounding terms such as "actionable," "synergize," "ideation" (and its verb form, "ideate"), "forward-thinking" and "leverage expectations."
It's not that we haven't been warned about jargon. For over 60 years writers such as George Orwell, E. B. White, Rudolph Flesh, William Zinsser, Steven Pinker and the authors of virtually all college composition textbooks have made the case that the use of jargon impedes communication, saps the vitality of writing and betrays a lack of creativity.
But the numerous pleas to abandon jargon, some quite eloquent, have fallen on deaf ears. Jargon, like an invasive species with no natural predator, has not only survived, it threatens to crowd out clear speech and prose.
Why is jargon so resilient? One reason is the innate human tendency to follow the latest trends. Just as in fashion and music, the use of jargon reflects what is popular in language. But there are more significant reasons why jargon is resilient.
First, as much as I hate to admit it, jargon is sometimes a useful abbreviation of a complex thought. Scholars of the history of English say that as the language evolves, it become less wordy and more compact, so that fewer words are needed to convey meaning. Jargon sometimes exemplifies this. Consider the cliché, "it is what it is." I agree with Sheldon, the character on "Big Bang Theory," that this phrase is a meaningless tautology (a needless repetition of meaning). Yet people use it to mean "we can't change the thing we are talking about, so we must accept it." The phrase is thus a useful short hand for a longer and more awkward sentence.
Second, jargon conveys status on its user. Like a secret handshake, the use of jargon signals our membership in a group or our place within a hierarchy. If you want to advance in business, use "paradigm shift" instead of "change." If you want to appear tech-savvy, use "frictionless" instead of "effective." If you want to appear young and up-to-date, pepper your speech with texting acronyms. If you want to appear learned, insert "I would argue" before making a point.
Since jargon isn't going away and I am powerless to change it (I mean, it is what it is), I have come to cautiously embrace it. I no longer flinch when I write "impact" instead of "affect" and "methodology" instead of "method." (I draw the line, however, at the abhorrent "impactful.") And now when I hear a reporter say "on the ground" I don't grit my teeth in annoyance. I think, she's burnishing her status as a journalist.
Eric Heavner works at a large downtown insurance company and is a part-time professional musician. He taught political science for 10 years at Towson University. His email is ericheavner@verizon.net.