Elon Musk’s Campaign Against Government Abbreviations
Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a key advisor to former President Donald Trump, is taking aim at the alphabet soup of federal agencies. Musk is advocating for the elimination of entire government entities rather than leaving fragments behind. One potential outcome of Musk’s disruptive actions could be the demise of the widespread use of abbreviations within government institutions.
In an email to his SpaceX team, Musk expressed his disdain for excessive acronyms, stating that they hinder effective communication. He has even established the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a playful nod to the popular cryptocurrency Dogecoin. Musk has also been designated as a special government employee (SGE) to bring about changes in the federal system.
The proliferation of abbreviations in Washington, D.C., is staggering, with countless departments, agencies, and commissions utilizing complex acronyms. Lawmakers often craft acronyms as marketing tools for legislation, sometimes resulting in contrived and convoluted names. This practice can obscure the true nature of laws, as seen with the USA PATRIOT Act.
The issue of excessive abbreviations is not unique to the United States, as other countries also grapple with confusing government communications. For instance, former British Secretary of State for Defense George Robertson sought to simplify his agency’s acronym-laden language amid global crises.
Elon Musk’s efforts to combat government abbreviations may lead to a more transparent and understandable system of communication within federal institutions.
In the world of government terminology, Sir Charles Guthrie, chief of staff to Robertson, leaned in to his boss and remarked, “Secretary of State, I believe you’ll find that solving the Bosnia issue will be more manageable.” French President Emmanuel Macron recently took on the challenging task of simplifying the “complex bureaucracy” of his country. “We are drowning in acronyms,” Macron expressed during a meeting with French business leaders. “It’s overwhelming.” Macron suggested merging various subsidies into a single program called Revenu Universel d’Activité but urged people not to shorten it to RUA. “I kindly ask you not to refer to it as RUA,” Macron emphasized. “Acronyms limit people’s understanding and flexibility.”
The use of abbreviations is on the rise in our global language. Australian scholars Adrian Barnett and Zoe Doubleday analyzed 24 million scholarly articles from 1950 to 2019 and discovered a significant increase in abbreviation usage, especially in abstracts. Out of the 1 million distinct abbreviations they identified, less than 1 percent were repeated, indicating that scholars may use abbreviations unnecessarily. The majority of abbreviations, nearly 80 percent, appeared fewer than 10 times.
Roy Peter Clark, a grammar expert, humorously remarked, “Though I grew up in the Age of Aquarius, I find myself getting older in the Age of the Acronym.” Many individuals share the sentiment that abbreviations are not the most effective means of communication, as shown by research. David Fang, a doctoral student at Stanford University, found that people who use text abbreviations like LOL, BTW, BRB, and TY might face challenges in conveying their messages effectively. Fang explained, “We observed that when people resort to using abbreviations, it gives the impression of putting in less effort, making them appear insincere, and consequently, they are less likely to receive a response.”
Perceptions and cognition play a crucial role in people’s aversion to abbreviations. Alyssa Appelman, a researcher and journalism professor at the University of Kansas, conducted an experiment where test subjects were presented with news articles featuring altered headlines with and without acronyms. The findings revealed that readers exhibited increased frustration when encountering abbreviations they didn’t understand. This frustration contributes to a sense of distrust towards institutions. Individuals who struggled with comprehending abbreviations were found to have a negative perception of media. Whether this relationship is causal or merely correlational remains uncertain, but it perpetuates a cycle of skepticism.
Moreover, negative perceptions surrounding abbreviations can exacerbate cultural divisions. Polls indicate a significant partisan gap in opinions regarding abbreviations such as DEI, CRT, and ESG. However, when researchers substituted these acronyms with their full-length equivalents (e.g., “equity” instead of DEI and “sustainability” instead of ESG), the partisan divide decreased. Precision, often lacking in abbreviations, may serve as a remedy
The 94-page pamphlet, which popularized the famous maxim “be short, be simple, be human,” served as the catalyst for the plain language movement. This movement, characterized by its preference for clarity and conciseness, has long been a proponent of communication that is easily accessible and understandable to the general public. Central to the ethos of plain language is its strong opposition to the use of convoluted government jargon and nonsensical abbreviations.
While the adoption and formalization of plain language standards by governments is a relatively recent development, the significance of this shift cannot be overstated. On October 13, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Plain Writing Act into law. This landmark legislation mandated that federal agencies enhance their effectiveness and accountability by ensuring that their communications are comprehensible and usable by the public. Among its provisions, the act stipulated that agencies must employ plain writing in their outward-facing documents, train staff in plain writing practices and standards, and establish effective avenues for public engagement.
A key focus of plain language initiatives is the discouragement of excessive use of abbreviations. The federal government’s plain language guidelines encourage employees to steer clear of jargon and opt for full words instead of abbreviations whenever possible. In cases where the use of abbreviations is deemed necessary, writers are advised to limit them to a maximum of two per page. This concerted effort to promote clarity and transparency underscores the commitment to effective communication with the public.
Despite the legal backing provided by the Plain Writing Act, the enforcement of plain language standards remains somewhat lax, akin to the enforcement of minor infractions like jaywalking. Ironically, the leading federal organization dedicated to plain language, the Plain Language Action and Information Network (PLAIN), derives its name from a backronym.
While abbreviations can be practical when referring to widely recognized entities such as the FBI or EPA, their overuse can hinder comprehension and lead to reader confusion. Plain language experts caution against the excessive reliance on abbreviations, which can obscure the intended message and alienate readers. In an era where complex and opaque language permeates governmental communications, the need for clear and concise language cannot be overstated.
Addressing the entrenched culture of abbreviation-laden government communication poses a formidable challenge. Given the vast bureaucratic landscape and the necessity of legislative action to effect substantive change, the task of reforming the federal communication norms is undoubtedly daunting. Public figures, including technology innovator Elon Musk, face an uphill battle in streamlining governmental communications and curbing the excessive use of abbreviations.
For public officials seeking to enhance their credibility and build trust with constituents, embracing the principles advocated by plain language proponents is paramount. By eschewing unnecessary abbreviations and striving for clarity in communication, government entities can foster greater transparency and engagement with the public. The call to “let abbreviations and acronyms RIP” serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of clear, accessible communication in the public sphere.
