“and that language carries real conse- quences.” She listed them one by one. Medicine tends to use neutral, clinical language that is slowly becoming more compassionate. Religion is gradually, if unevenly, shifting away from older sin- based frameworks. Law still grapples with the lingering shadow of criminal- ization. And media, she noted, is making visible progress toward language that is more respectful and less sensational.
thing we should all practice more often.” Krebs highlighted the stakes of this practice, noting that “when it comes to talking about suicide specifical - ly, empathy must be at the center because of the heightened emotions the subject carries. You nev-
er know who’s in the room.” The words un- derscored the invisible networks of experience and pain that shape how people receive language, how societal stigma can amplify harm, and how careful, considered di- alogue can offer recog - nition and relief. They continued, explaining that “centering empa- thy in our communica- tion means doing our best to account for the perspectives of all these people and not dismiss any of them. It means embracing nuance and contradiction, and it requires being open to feedback and pivoting your communication and approach as need- ed.” The conversation
“Institutional language shapes policy, treatment, and public attitudes. When powerful institutions up- date their language to saf- er alternatives, they also help dismantle the stigma that keeps people silent or afraid to seek help.” I found myself asking, what are the guidelines? How do we measure whether public conver- sations are truly helpful or harmful to those who might be listening? The answer, it seems, comes down to something time- less yet essential: empathy. Krebs emphasized that “empathetic communica- tion is helpful in almost all
areas of life,” and that it “requires ded- icated listening—not just to respond, but to understand—and that’s some-
revealed that empathy is more than a personal vir- tue, but a social responsibility. One that requires at- tentiveness to the complexities of human experience and an awareness of the broader cultural forces that shape understanding and misunderstanding alike. The language we use directly reflects the amount of empathy we carry. Language is far from neu- tral. As Dr. Stollznow points out, “What we call
Candlelight Magazine
40
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator