Writer: Craig Meerkamper

Communications is steeped in a galaxy of cultural context that we automatically invoke every time we speak. Our ability to communicate ideas, emotions, and situations to each other often relies on our ability to draw from a shared set of cultural reference points. From narratives like Shakespeare and the Bible to catchphrases from television shows, military jargon, and moments in pop culture, words and phrases are steeped in context and cultural double-entendre. So what happens when that context is ignored?

I've heard from both comedians and public figures a common complaint that something they did or said is being taken ‘out of context’ to make them look bad. While it’s true that you can cut or ‘clip’ a video or statement to make someone's words or actions appear different from their intent, there’s equally numerous instances where the added ‘context’ (i.e. the moments preceding and following the segment we initially saw) are in fact more damning when included.

Something innocent in one circumstance can take on an oppositional meaning if used in the wrong company or at the wrong time. This is partially due to the ongoing evolution of language and how the definitions of terms describe ‘usage’ rather than ‘meaning’. It’s why the dictionary is updated every year and new words continue to be added (shout-out to 2024’s word of the year ‘Brain-rot’). A drastic example can be seen with the evolution of ‘Queer’ from being used to mean strange or weird, to its use as a slur for gay people, to the modern reclamation of the term as a community identifier. The word remained the same, but the context of the times and culture that surrounded it changed.

Invoking a desire for ‘context’ is similar to the practices cigarette companies started employing in the 1970s when awareness of their products’ devastating ill-health effects began to be more broadly known. Their response? Begin finding the very research looking into the health effects of their products. While this might sound like tobacco companies taking accountability and responsibility for the effects of cigarettes, it’s not that simple. It turns out that if you never finalize your research, and never publish your findings, you can weaponize contextual ambiguity. The strategy isn’t to prove that cigarettes don’t cause cancer, but instead to claim that the research is ongoing, inconclusive, and incomplete. Without the finished research, who’s to say what the truth really is? All the while these products remain on store shelves continuing to cause the damage their owners' research apparently struggles to find.

As someone who watches debate content online, it can be entertaining to see two people hash out a disagreement. That said, debate content can quickly get to a point when the actual discussion of substance is side-lined by an extended disagreement about the semantic use of a term or phrase. A debate on ‘what’s better Cats or Dogs’ can quickly become exhausting when the interlocutors dedicate time to what amounts to a difference of phrasing. Substantial discussions around the costs of each, hygiene, life-span, emotional benefits, or otherwise are delayed as they instead argue about what the meaning of a word is. This shift from discussing concepts to discussing words can even be deployed as a tactic by some debaters to stall a debate and ‘win’ points from an opponent who is willing to concede a word's semantic meaning under the hope that it will get the debate back to the topic at hand.

For businesses, the benefits that come from establishing a shared base of context are most obvious when it comes to negotiations. While negotiations don’t typically end in a perfect compromise, a shared foundation of understanding regarding the circumstance of the negotiation, shared interests, and leverage, means both sides can establish some shared ‘truths’ on the matter. Negotiation styles are also highly culturally influenced by values like pride, entitlement, strategy, collaboration, and national identity just to name a few.

The Trump/Zelenskyy meeting on US aid to Ukraine is a great example of context being lost (and I would argue deliberately being ignored). The meeting between the US and Ukraine was quickly seen as a textbook case of negotiations gone wrong. Ignoring for a moment how antagonism and power plays have become the go-to strategy of American foreign policy, we can notice a few instances of missing context which definitely worsened the fiasco.

The context of language in that Zelenskyy was not speaking his first language meant he would respond to English sayings like “You don’t have the cards” with “We are not playing cards.” which seemed to annoy Trump.
The context of diplomacy was undermined when a discussion that was ostensibly between two state’s leaders was not respected by a peanut gallery of aides and associates who sought to insert themselves into the news cycle with outbursts designed to instigate Zelenskyy.
The context of respectable state-wear was brought up when some in attendance began berating Zelenskyy for his military clothing choice. One person asked him “do you even own a suit?”, implying that maintaining a presidential appearance was more important that Zelenskyy’s promise to his people that as the Ukrainian commander in chief he will appear in military fatigues during the ongoing war.
The Vice President also asked if Zelenskyy had “said ‘Thank You’ once.” deliberately ignoring the context of the hundreds of on camera appearances where Zelenskyy had said just that.
Lastly, the context of understanding the American negotiation style.

Zelenskyy was clearly aware of the context (missing or ignored) that kept coming up throughout the conversation and even highlighted this by inviting the Vice-President to come to Ukraine and see for himself the devastation of the war. His attempts to describe the greater threats that both Ukraine and the US would benefit from defending against unfortunately fell on deaf ears. His suggestion that the effects of conflict abroad would eventually make their way back to the US mainland was then intentionally misconstrued by the Vice President who feigned taking it as some sort of threat by Ukraine against the security of America, bringing us into the. The American style of negotiation is often a zero-sum fight with winners and losers (and Trump is not a loser, you are).

Turning to a Canadian context. While it wasn’t badgered on as excessively, there was a similar communication slip up during the French debate for the Liberal Party leadership when Mark Carney mistakenly said he “Agrees with Hamas” en francais. Now regardless of his almost immediate correction by other candidates it was a concern that this would be capitalized on by the opposition to suggest Carney was somehow in favor of the group. Carney had meant to say that he agreed ‘on’ Hamas which was the topic at hand, but a single change of word (avec v. sur) completely altered his intended meaning.

Of course with the added context of who Carney is, his past stances, the discussion at the time, and his immediate self-correction, we know this was a grammatical misspeak and nothing else. The context exonerated him. However the context that this was a relatively basic grammatical error highlighted an issue with his French proficiency. This could be capitalized on as a wedge between him and the French-Canadian population who value a politician’s ability to equally communicate in both of the nation's official languages.

Context is a powerful tool in both the right and wrong hands. The ability to use context that is true and beneficial to your side of a negotiation can be the turning point that results in compromise or concession. That said, ‘context’ is never a complete set of facts, it’s highly amorphous and flexible. A skilled debater, or a disingenuous individual, can selectively choose what context they think is ‘relevant’ (or discard context you have brought a ‘irrelevant’) if they feel it strengthens their angle.

When considering how to approach a decision or negotiation on behalf of your business, establishing a shared contextual foundation with the other party is the best way to have a productive meeting with them. If it starts becoming obvious that the other party is fleeing towards semantics, attempting to undermine the already agreed upon foundational context, or simply trying to start a fight, it may just be best to disengage.

Productive negotiation requires two parties interested in mutual benefit, if one side starts being rude and obtuse as a negotiating tactic then frankly it’s just a waste of your time.