A “good writerly habit” might consist of continually revising toward specificity…
Consider this sentence, which I’ll infuse with increasing specification:
Some guy is sitting in a random room thinking nothing at all and this other guy walks in.
An angry racist is sitting in a room, thinking of how unfairly he’s been treated all his life, and a person of another race walks in.
An angry white racist named Mel, who has cancer, is sitting in the examination room, thinking of how unfairly he’s been treated all his life, when his doctor, a slightly egotistical Pakistani American, Dr. Bukhari, walks in, bearing bad news for Mel but glowing, in spite of that, with happiness because he’s just won a major award.
I don’t know what’s going to happen next in that last, more specific, room but I’m pretty sure something will.
(Saunders, George. A Swim in a Pond in the Rain: In Which Four Russians Give a Master Class on Writing, Reading, and Life. Random House Publishing Group, 2021, p. 142. Kindle edition.)
Language creates.
It forms.
It imbues, hints, designs, and devises.
It creates worlds and helps us see what’s in them by the details included.
The details and their specificity reveal emotional content and context.
The author’s world is richer, more nuanced, and more emotionally charged with greater specificity.
For example, consider these examples of the loaves and fish from the four gospels.
“Jesus asked them, How many loaves have you? They said, “Seven, and a few small fish.” Matt. 15.34
“‘How many loaves have you? Go and see.’ When they had found out, they said, ‘Five, and two fish.’” Mark. 6:38
“There is a boy here who has five barley loaves and two fish. But what are they among so many people?” John 6:9
“But he said to them, ‘You give them something to eat.’ They said, ‘We have no more than five loaves and two fish—unless we are to go and buy food for all these people.’” Luke 9:13
Matthew’s gospel is like the first sentence of Saunders’s example without much detail. Not even the number of fish (“a few”) is specific, which Mark helpfully supplies (“two fish”).
John details the food but notes that it’s one boy who has them. In addition, there’s an element of desperation: a small boy with so little food for so many people. Combined it draws a picture of helplessness.
Luke adds on. This author shows more about relationship between disciples and Jesus. Jesus tosses this one back to the disciples: you do it! Jesus brings them to their own understanding that this is an impossible situation without his interventional grace. And no, Jesus goes on to show, even if they had it, money would not get them out of their predicament.
God is in the details.
The Emotional Landscape of “Black and White”
Unfortunately, some details are distorted by common usage.
For instance, the color black has come to have a connotation that’s often negative.
“Black" is described by thesaurus.com as “lacking hue and brightness; opposite to white.” collins.com says the word simply describes “dark.” (Curiously, thesaurus.com doesn’t say that “white” is the opposite of black. White, apparently is the color against which other colors are contrasted and not vice-versa.)
Beyond definitions for the color black, both sites list no subcategories for “white” but multiple subcategories for “black” showing the emotional baggage we’ve given it: gloomy, dismal; not clean; angry, menacing; terrible; cynical; bruise; boycott; evil or wicked.
Consider these common phrases or descriptors that illustrate the point.
To “blacklist” is to block an unwanted message into our email server. It’s seen as unsafe. To “whitelist” grants it permission to enter; it’s seen as safe.
The “black market” is clandestine, underhanded, and suspect.
To “blackball” is to ostracize.
The “black sheep” is the one who rebelled or turned their back on their family or community.
To “blacken” someone’s name is to denigrate it.
I don’t believe God is in those details.
But the human conditions of power, control, and subjugation are—in horrifying specificity.
These associations have been cast over centuries and reinforced by usage.
They serve as building blocks in our emotional landscapes.
Lay down a lot of those building blocks, and we’ve built the foundation for prejudice.
When we paint the biblical world or our own with these color-based, emotional connotations, those details carry weight. They unwittingly propagate the legacy of slavery, discrimination, segregation, and racism.
How else can we account for the negative reaction when the (inaccurate) Western-White Jesus typically seen in paintings and stained glass mythology is replaced with a darker skinned Jesus, which more accurately represents a historical Middle Eastern man?
Want to Change the Narrative? Change the Language
When we describe a situation in our sermons, writing, or everyday speech, we can learn to avoid using “black” to evoke an emotionally negative connotation.
It will take time, but intentionally specifying different words will help remove the stigma from the color and build a new foundation for better appreciating the true, glorious image of God People of Color already reveal.
After all, how many of us recall that just a century ago, pink was associated with boys and blue with girls?
Language changes and, as a result, so does our culture.
If we want to be part of changing the narrative, we can improve the specificity of our language. We can tell better stories with more informed word choice.
To that end, I compiled a guide of specific, alternate words/language you can use the next time you’re searching for the word you need.
Words create, form, and build. Our words help God build the kin-dom when they honor the dignity and holy wonder of every person God created.