Words matter.
If we don’t insist on a semblance of proper word use then society loses its ability to communicate effectively and we’ll have nothing but a tangle of exaggeration, overstatement, misunderstanding and vagueness.
Yet we grow numb to certain powerful words as they are misused, abused, overused or ridiculously used. They are leveraged as attention grabbers and clickbait, to elicit fear and to create controversy.
Existential is the latest on my hit list.
It’s a sexy sounding word that makes the user sound erudite – most regularly paired with crisis or threat. Except that most references are either badly strained or outright incorrect.
The word’s definition lies readily within - “that which concerns or is related to our existence” - notably that of humanity.
Existentialist philosophy dates to 1800s Europe with Soren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche and Fyodor Dostoevsky as early adherents exploring meaning and existence beyond explanations rooted only in the divine. The existentialist intellectual movement then dates to 1940s France popularized by Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus and Simone De Beauvoir among others.
Existentialist philosophy encompasses a range of perspectives, but it shares certain underlying concepts. Among these, a central tenet of existentialism is that personal freedom, individual responsibility, and deliberate choice are essential to the pursuit of self-discovery and the determination of life's meaning.
[Paul Kleinman, Philosophy 101]
Considering these definitions we see major liberties being taken, of late, when using the word existential - in the news, online discourse and political commentary.
To illustrate – here are some top headline search results from various news sites not accounting for the word’s copious use within articles. Many of them stretch even a most generous interpretation, few reflect its core meaning and some are pure nonsense.
Globe & Mail
EU faces existential crisis without urgent investment and reform, says former European Central Bank president
Technology and the law: Catching up to the existential threat of deepfakes
In America’s existential election, choice itself will be on the ballot
Parti Québécois leader pledges referendum, claiming Ottawa poses ‘existential threat’
In the digital economy, accountancy faces an existential threat
CBC
Steel and aluminum CEOs warn of 'existential threat' if Canada doesn't impose tariffs on China
Political tribalism is an existential threat to humanity: evolutionary anthropologist
Trudeau says foreign election interference is an ‘existential threat’
Community newspapers face 'existential crisis' amid declining revenues, Meta's news ban, some say
‘We’re in an existential crisis’ – actors on strike, Hollywood productions shut down
New York Times
Why is Brian Kelly so ‘angry’? Because LSU’s Week 1 woes are now an existential crisis
Can MLB save the starting pitcher? The search for solutions to baseball’s ‘existential crisis’
At the DealBook Summit, Leaders Contend With an ‘Existential Moment’
Harris Warns That the ‘Existential Threats’ of A.I. Are Already Here
A Google search on the term “biggest existential threats” turns up arguably more viable results, generating the following list: nuclear war, AI, bioengineered pandemic, nanotechnology, asteroid, biodiversity loss, biological warfare, human overpopulation, natural risks, climate change, pandemics and ecological collapse.
The most interesting return on that search is, “There are unknown unknowns” which references a portion of Donald Rumsfeld’s brilliant 2002 quote, “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.”
ChatGPT returns a similar list to Google but, alas, no Rumsfeld quote. Perhaps it’s not so smart after all.
Searching for existential on YouTube then throws a wild array of results with AI, climate change and technology dominating.
And while it’s a bit Tim Burton-esque and strange, this music video pops up high on the list, hitting the nail on the head regarding how overwhelmed and frantic we often feel with the constant barrage of existential doom warnings.
Meanwhile, with the US election in full swing we hear almost daily of the existential threat posed by Donald Trump. Like, dislike or revile the man as suits your opinion, but predicting he will trigger the end of humanity is wild-eyed fantasy. Yet existentiality is one of the main storylines driving the entire election.
Why does any of this matter? After all it’s just a word, right?
Well, if you care about the importance of words then it irks to see them sloppily used, particularly one so loaded with meaning. Its frequent, incorrect and lax use creates a Boy Who Cried Wolf effect of watering down its viability for use in appropriate instances. After all, if $3 avocados are an existential issue then where do we categorize nuclear war or an asteroid hurtling towards Earth?
But I offer two stronger reasons for greater care to be taken with this word.
Pondering humanity’s end is too big and unfathomable for most of us to process. So regularly pushing stories about the threat to our very existence, even if they held a thread of near term relevance is catastrophization for little point. We are already warned of so many things that are apparently crises, despite our terrible track record of predicting future events. So now upping the ante to existential crisis does little more than create unnecessary angst and drive us to a state of constant and unwarranted dread.
Perhaps as importantly, assuming we could reach consensus on the truly existential issues at play, there is little we can do about them. Even without the limitations of time and headspace for most people, it distracts from productive things we can be doing in our neighbourhoods, communities and country that would arguably have much greater impact on humanity. I say this not to promote apathy but rather to be pragmatic about the trade off between unactionable angst and efficacy. If our end goal is the betterment of humankind, then where can we have a greater impact - wringing our hands about a theoretical event 200 years from now or helping a local charity in our community, for instance?
To be sure, there are serious global threats afoot. And one day humanity will almost certainly reach a sudden or gradual end. I doubt any of us will experience it - nor our children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren – though many disagree and feel its icy finger already tapping their shoulder. But if you are inclined to go down that rabbit hole, stay attuned to whether the proclaimed issues really are existential or someone is just using a fancy word to stoke your fears.
And keep in mind that Donald Rumsfeld was correct - what’s gonna get you in the end is likely not what you think is gonna get you.
Stay tuned and stay pragmatic.
Another great piece bringing into focus all that will end the world as we know it. I wonder if there is a correlation between such frequent use of “existential” and it being fed to us across so many devices, platforms and channels seemingly 24/7 and the level of stress and anxiety that exists amongst our population. Every thing is “breaking news”, imminent danger, “this just in”, “how to plan for” … you name it. Thanks for your great writing. I have to run now … there is an existential threat if I don’t have my second cup of coffee :-)
I once went on leadership training course on how to discuss performance issues without making things worse. The nugget that stuck with me was "don't overstate your case." Exaggeration for the purpose of driving home your point is quite properly rejected by the person you're trying to influence who will see your efforts as undermining them whether deliberately or through a misunderstanding of the issue in question.