'Toxic,' The Go-To Inflammatory Descriptor
What is behind this expanding use to express dissatisfaction and anger
There are many behaviors that are condemned in a similar fashion. They are labeled a certain adjective: Toxic masculinity, toxic behavior, toxic positivity, toxic marriage and a fairly new one found online recently, toxic femininity. It’s a favored word to express oneself and one’s disgust. Why has this descriptor become popular and widespread?
With the natural, emotional need to vent painful and harmful human experiences, something particular has to be behind the regular use of the vivid adjective to communicate what is offensive, damaging and intolerable.
“Labeling someone as toxic arises out of hurt and blame,“ says Kimberly Best, a dispute resolution specialist and the founder of Best Conflict Solutions. “As a society, we have become too quick to label, not the action, but the whole person. Calling someone ‘toxic’ means they are the problem. Not a particular behavior, response or reaction is wrong, but the whole person.”
But there is more going on, says another communication professional.
“Some people have taken the concept of being made to feel uncomfortable to an extreme level and have begun to use the term ‘toxic’ to describe things that they simply don’t like,” says John Verrico, the founder and speaker, trainer and coach at John Verrico — Share Your Fire — and a 42-year veteran of public affairs, primarily in government and military organizations.
“And that has continued to evolve to include any behavior that someone else considers to be extreme, compared to their own normal. It is similar to how the term ‘woke’ has evolved to having negative connotations. Initially, the term was used to describe people who have been enlightened or become aware of a situation they may not have realized existed before.
“The unfortunate result is that ‘toxic’ is losing its impact by being overused and applied to insignificant issues.”
He balances his analysis by saying that “Toxic people and toxic environments should be taken seriously and addressed.”
Best says that so frequently using the term is unhelpful and surprisingly, problematic.
“When we label someone as toxic, we become victims. Victims are powerless and innocent. In most relationships, we are really neither of those,” she declares. “We will make mistakes, we will disappoint, we will use the coping skills we know, even if they aren’t really working well for us because we haven’t learned other ways to work through conflict.”
“Toxic” certainly appears to be valuable for venting within a tribe of people who share mutual experiences and thus, understand. It can be well accepted for sharing pain yet possibly not always or often in alignment with intelligent, illuminating dissections of conversation to move towards solutions.
“When people or their opinions, perspectives or achievements are belittled, attacked or otherwise aggressively criticized — especially without substance — the natural response is to get defensive, seeking to protect themselves or their position,” Verrico says. “This just exacerbates a negative situation, preventing any progress or opportunity for resolution.”
It would be more beneficial to bypass venting and choosing skilled communication.
“What we need, instead of debates and arguments, is dialogue. We need to notice when we are fighting to be right,” Best states. “When we have to be right, we have to make the other person wrong. If I have to win, then I have to make you lose. No one likes to be wrong or to lose.”
Perspective is important.
“A different perception of an issue can be enlightening and understanding a problem from all perspectives can reveal solutions that would never have been considered or even thought of without that collaborative view,” Verrico teaches.
“One exercise I use as a training aid for team dynamics is to (help people) imagine a box in which we are trying to determine the contents. There is a single hole in the top of the box and one person can only look into the box from that hole. Looking down into the box, that person sees a circle, so from their perspective, they believe the contents of the box is round. A ball, or globe, etc., so they will treat the box that way.
‘There is a second hole in the side of the box and another person can only look at the contents from that sideways angle. What they see is a triangle, so from their view, the item inside is triangular in shape like a pyramid.
“But until both parties share and understand the other’s perspective, they will never realize that what is in the box is a cone, which is both round and triangular.
Only open, honest, supportive, conversation would reveal this,” he points out.
There is thinking and communication that can greatly assist society and our culture to move us as individuals and collectives towards the desirable or necessary improvements and the reliable solutions in areas deemed "toxic.”
“We should all be learning and almost no one has conflict management skills,” Best begins, adding that, “This includes first, learning about the biology of conflict; why we react and respond how we do, understanding differing capacity in managing conflict, understanding why perspectives are different, understanding triggers and biases, all of which, hopefully, helps us understand ourselves better and our own responses and reactions to people.”
With that foundation, people can respond to differences and problems better.
“Then we need to develop the skills to communicate well in conflict,” Best adds. “These include listening well, summarizing and asking questions to understand. They also include learning to be vulnerable enough to speak from an honest place of how something made us feel. We need to learn to question and check our assumptions. We need to understand our motives and the needs behind them and finally, one of the hardest things to do, we need to learn to ask for what we need.”
It’s smart within such conversations to show humanity, attention, curiosity and patience.
“In the crisis communication world, we know that people need to know that we care before they care what we know. So, the best and most effective communication is when both parties listen to understand,” Verrico asserts.
“Even if we ultimately disagree with their position,” he adds, “we need to hear what they say and understand perhaps why they believe what they do.
“Then, rather than belittling or disputing the other’s points, seek the common interests and solutions that can address concerns on both sides.”
Thank you for reading this issue.
To receive new posts of Communication Intelligence, the Newsletter and support this work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Advertising Updated: Contact me at comm.intel.newsletter@gmail.com about communicating your business value offering for $400 for a large, prominent, attractive color ad in one issue, $700 for an ad in two issues or $2,000 for a color ad placement in every new article for one month (usually six-to-eight issues).
