The Weight of Words
Writing Stories with Care
In social work and the wider sector, the language we use shapes not only how we perceive the people we work with but also how they see themselves. Words have the power to heal, to connect, and to empower. Equally, they can stigmatise, dismiss, or perpetuate harm. This understanding is at the heart of our professional journey in social work and the focus of our training on "The Power of Language."
Consider the work of Lemn Sissay, a poet and author whose memoir My Name Is Why recounts his experiences in the UK care system. Sissay describes how professionals wrote about him without care or humanity, reducing him to reports filled with clinical, impersonal observations. These words stripped away his individuality and humanity, leaving behind a narrative that lacked compassion and understanding.
Sissay's story is a poignant reminder that as social workers, we are entrusted not just with people’s care but with their stories—their worlds. The words we choose can either build someone up or trap them within the confines of a label.
Language and Evolution
Language is not static; it evolves to reflect societal shifts and growing understanding. Yet, change can provoke resistance. For instance, some professionals struggle to move away from terms like "case" to describe individuals, a word that inherently dehumanizes and reduces someone’s life to an administrative task.
The Pan London Safeguarding Procedures emphasises the importance of language in safeguarding practices. They advocate for terminology that respects individuality and avoids terms that could perpetuate stigma or bias.
Examples of Reframing Language
Here are some ways we can shift our language to be more person-centered:
Instead of: "Non-compliant with services."
Try: "Struggling to engage with services."Instead of: "Failed placement."
Try: "Placement breakdown due to unmet needs."Instead of: "At risk of exploitation."
Try: "Vulnerable to exploitation."
These shifts are not about softening reality but about framing it in a way that acknowledges the person’s dignity and context.
Lets think how we speak about people we work with For example, rather than "baggage" to describe a person’s challenges, we could say "experiences" or "journey," which are more respectful and reflective.
The Importance of Language in Safeguarding Survivors of Sexual Exploitation
Language is a powerful tool in shaping perceptions, influencing attitudes, and ultimately determining the support survivors.
Professionals working with survivors from all harms must ensure that the language they use does not reinforce victim-blaming narratives, as this can cause further harm and alienate those in need of protection and care.
The Pan London Safeguarding Procedures highlight the detrimental impact of victim-blaming language. For example Survivors of child sexual exploitation (CSE) frequently report feeling blamed, disbelieved, and uncared for by professionals. This issue was starkly underscored in the Serious Case Review (SCR) in Oxfordshire, which examined how language influenced professional responses to abuse.
Findings from the Oxfordshire Serious Case Review
Page 34 of the review details how the language used in records and reports located responsibility for the abuse with the victims rather than the perpetrators. Professionals often described the children’s actions in ways that suggested complicity rather than coercion and exploitation. This reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of CSE and its impact on young people, failing to acknowledge the manipulation, grooming, and control exercised by abusers.
This misrepresentation had significant consequences:
Children’s Narratives Were Shaped by Professional Language – When victims consistently encountered language that implied their involvement rather than their victimhood, they could easily internalise the blame. This could then discouraged disclosure and reinforced feelings of shame and isolation.
Failure to Convey the True Risk to Other Professionals – The language used in reports by social workers, school staff, NHS professionals, andPolice failed to capture the severity of the risks children faced. Descriptions such as “putting themselves in risky situations” or “associating with inappropriate individuals” shifted responsibility onto the victim rather than recognising the coercion and control of the perpetrators.
Missed Opportunities for Intervention – When professionals read reports framed in this way, they were less likely to recognise the immediate and serious risks to the child. As a result, interventions were often delayed or insufficient, failing to provide the level of protection required.
The Need for a Trauma-Informed Approach
To ensure children are safeguarded effectively, all professionals, whether in social care, education, health, or Ploice, wemust adopt a trauma-informed approach to language. This means:
Using language that places responsibility on perpetrators, not victims.
Acknowledging the coercion and control inherent in exploitation.
Describing concerns in a way that clearly conveys the risks and the child’s vulnerability.
Recognising that children cannot consent to exploitation.
By committing to a more careful and compassionate use of language, professionals can help create an environment where survivors feel supported, believed, and empowered to seek help. Language matters, it shapes narratives, influences decisions, and ultimately determines the protection and justice afforded to survivors of sexual exploitation.
