Russell Conjugation is when someone chooses different words to describe something, depending on how favorable they want to be to the thing they are describing.
It is a form of “spin”, or emotive/emotional conjugation, which is used to convey a fact in a way that also conveys the speaker’s opinion of that fact.
How is a Russell Conjugation Constructed?
The original Russell Conjugation format looks like this:
I X, you Y, they Z.
Where X is a word choice that paints the speaker in a positive light, Y is somewhat less generous to you, and Z paints the other person in a negative light.
You can call these positive, mild, or negative Russell Conjugates.
The key to understanding Russell Conjugation is that the exact behavior described in each of these examples is identical. But the words used to describe each behavior differ, depending on how the speaker wants his or her audience to interpret them.
Examples of Russell Conjugation:
- I stand up for myself, you won’t take no for an answer, she always needs to get her way.
- I am detail oriented, you don’t let anything past you, he is a nitpicker.
- I am thorough, you could benefit from streamlining your writing, they are a long-winded bore.
Russell Conjugations don’t always have to follow the “I, you, they” formula either. In fact, you’re more likely to encounter them in more subtle ways:
- A politician you support reconsidered the matter in light of new evidence, but the politician you don’t support flip-flopped.
- You negotiated boldly, but your coworker wasn’t being a team player.
- Your own child is self-assured, but the neighbor’s son is a brat.
If it seems slightly dishonest or hypocritical, it is! But if you keep an eye out for it, you may even catch yourself using Russell Conjugations from time to time. It’s human nature to subtly support the people we identify with.
What Makes Russell Conjugation Different from Other Grammatical Conjugations
Most other types of grammatical conjugation are used to clarify the meaning of a statement. One of the things that makes the English language so great is how rich it is with words, all having their own connotation and nuance.
But instead of enhancing language to communicate more clearly, people use Russell Conjugation to add bias to the facts of a situation. Usually in a way they hope will influence the audience to interpret the facts their way.
Why You Should Care
It’s useful to be able to identify Russell Conjugation because:
- It can be used to manipulate you or the people you care about, and
- It will give you the ability to identify bias in news, writing, and conversation.
When you’re reading or hearing someone speak, you can pause and ask yourself “am I forming my opinion based on the facts of this situation, or on the opinion of the writer/speaker?”
Real-World Examples of Russell Conjugation
You don’t have to look further than the front page of mainstream news outlets to see Russell Conjugation in action. Here’s an example from the New York Times home page in May of 2021:
Note how the paper describes the conflict as “civil unrest”. Next to the article is a photograph of a huge explosion going off in the middle of a city.
Whatever the standard definition of “civil unrest” is, it’s likely gone past that point once buildings start exploding. Yet the Times chose to call it “civil unrest” as opposed to “armed conflict”, which would be more accurate. “Civil unrest” would be appropriate to describe a protest which has gone off the rails, not huge explosions going off in the middle of a city.
The use of the term “civil unrest” seems to imply that the conflict is less serious than what appears to be actually happening.
Here’s another one from Fox News, also from May of 2021:
Notice how Fox portrays immigration as a “crisis”, and the flow of migrants as a “surge” which is “swelling”.
The headline does not describe the events impartially. It doesn’t provide any numbers or attempt to let the reader decide whether it’s a problem. Instead, the language used makes the implied assumption is that immigration is a problem.
Bertrand Russell and the History of The Term
While the practice has probably been around as long as language, it became known as “Russell’s conjugation” after philosopher Bertrand Russell explained the concept in detail in a 1948 episode of the BBC Radio show The Brains Trust.
Russel used the following examples to describe the phenomenon:
- I am firm, you are obstinate, he is a pig-headed fool.
- I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing.
- I have reconsidered the matter, you have changed your mind, he has gone back on his word.
Modern Usage
More recently, Eric Weinstein has given popularity to Russell Conjugations. He uses them to identify and critique modern politicized speech:
Weinstein’s tweet illustrates that the common term “political correctness” is actually a negative Russell Conjugate of the term “respectful speech”. They both mean the same thing. But to call a statement “politically correct” is to cast doubts on the motives of the speaker. It implies they are using certain language for political approval, instead of out of respect for another person or group.
If you understand this, you can use it to reframe any debates you may have about political correctness by referring to it as “respectful speech.” After all, it’s hard to imagine someone arguing against being respectful.
Conclusion
Now that you know what you need to know about Russell Conjugation, you’ll be able to spot it in the wild, and maybe in yourself. It should help you take the emotion out of the fact-finding process, and understand the world a little more clearly.
I run a small SEO consulting business in San Francisco, CA. I like to write a little bit and get in arguments with my friends. It’s the only way I can make sense of the world.