How awkward truths can drive change
Awkwardness, while often avoided, can point to the need for new words to shape the way we understand our changing world
Why are things sometimes awkward? We have all experienced interactions that are, well, awkward. And these unfortunate, awkward moments can sometimes forever be available online, such as the moment in 2017 when the Oscar for Best Picture was initially given to La La Land, only to be corrected shortly after to the real winner, Moonlight. Clearly, the cast and crew of La La Land felt very awkward when they were informed on stage of this error. And 'cringe comedy' gives us second-hand access to someone else's awkwardness: the TV show 'The Office' was based around this, such as the character David Brent's attempt to show off his "dance moves" to his co-workers created a famous scene of intense awkwardness.
In everyday conversations, things can get quickly awkward when we stray into sensitive territory, for which there is a long list - sex, salary gaps, menstruation, political affiliation or death, to name a few. But what are the implications of awkwardness? The temptation, of course, is to act on the very visceral feelings that engulf us and close things down as fast as possible. Or indeed to anticipate that risk and so avoid those situations or topics of conversation that run the danger of getting awkward. This means that despite the comedic associations of awkwardness, it has problematic implications for shaping behaviours in ways that can be unhelpful, particularly in relation to sensitive topics.
But perhaps making something awkward can also be a way of sanctioning poor behaviour. Many of us will have felt the discomfort of awkward silences following someone's problematic—perhaps racist or sexist—remark. This 'social freezing' can very saliently signal that what has been said is inappropriate. As such, it may be a useful tool to discourage certain behaviours.
Given this, awkwardness merits a closer behavioural examination to better understand what it is, how it unfolds, and how we go about addressing it to allow better conversations and for change to take place on tricky topics.
Awkwardness
In her recent book on this topic, philosopher Alexandra Plakias unpacks how awkwardness is a sign that the social scripts for a conversation, the tools we use for coordinating how to interact, are inadequate. When we lack the words to describe something, then our conversations with people can be difficult as we encounter the challenge of awkwardness.
Counter to other perspectives on this topic, she spells out how awkwardness is different from feelings of embarrassment or shame: she sets out how these 'self-conscious emotions' accompany awkwardness but that they are separate and distinct phenomena. Notably, she states that awkwardness is not an individual attribute, something that might feel counter-intuitive as we are used to describing people as awkward or to experience strong emotions ourselves when in awkward situations.
Instead, Plakias makes a compelling case that awkwardness occurs when participants in a conversation do not have the guidance of a 'script' and are at a loss for what to do next. By script, we mean the agreed-but-unspoken frameworks that we all use to guide our expectations and behaviours in particular contexts.
Awkwardness is when these scripts fail to give us the guidance we need, and we then do not have access to the social cues or language that would get us back on track. For example, the workplace can be an environment where things can readily get awkward. There are typically well-rehearsed scripts that work for many things, from casual greetings and meetings to conflict resolution and team collaboration. However, there are some areas where we might depart from these well-known scripts: for example, if a member of your team mentions that they are suffering from anxiety, as their manager you may feel uncertain about how to respond. This may well be the case if your employer is not a place where mental health is openly discussed. Should you offer support, suggest time off, or maybe change the subject is easier as quickly as possible? If there is a lack of guidelines or language to help the conversation flow, then there are not many social cues to know what is appropriate, both for the team member who is uncertain how their concern will be received and for you as their manager, not really knowing how to talk to them, what can be offered and so on. We can see from this example how awkwardness is less about the dispositions of the people involved but instead is a reflection of the absence of a shared script on how to handle mental health in the workplace.
Of course this is a problem: as we know, anticipating awkwardness means we are less likely to initiate a conversation, and we will seek to leave it as quickly as possible. This means that people are left isolated, without the tools to discuss and explore essential things going on for them. And not only that, but this limits what Plakias calls our exercise of 'epistemic agency'. By this, she means that it is only through sharing our experiences that others can learn, for mindsets to shift, and for change to occur. If people cannot talk about important issues, it is hard for others to understand their experiences.
Of course, awkwardness is not only about personal, sensitive issues. It may be awkward if we cannot quite articulate an issue: the other person may be frustrated with us and get irritated. Awkwardness stems from a gap in mutual understanding, maybe about how to navigate a situation or articulate an issue—again, it is about the way scripts fail to bridge the understanding gap between people. This aligns with Plakias' notion of epistemic agency, as not having the correct language can mean we fail to understand each other, and awkwardness then ensues. On this basis, perhaps we need to adapt words, sometimes even making them up.
Digital rights activist and writer Cory Doctrow did just this in 2022, coining the term ‘enshittification’. It was designed to capture something that many people had a sense of but could not quite put their finger on—the way in which digital platforms can become worse over time. It became so popular that it was voted word of the year in 2023.
In a quite different vein, English words are gaining ground in the US - with terms such as bloke (man), gutted (very disappointed), and bloody (a mild expletive) becoming more familiar to Americans. At one level, it is no surprise that we see it as a reflection of trends in language – after all, language is a living thing. But it is not just that, as we are not only borrowing words but also importing the concepts and encapsulating ideas that those words represent. For example, according to Ben Yagoda, the American professor who tracks 'Not one-off Bristishisms' (NOOBs), some words are simply better at describing certain things. For example, in British English, ‘queue’ implies orderly waiting, while ‘line’ in American English can feel less formal, which means that when Americans adopt ‘queue,’ it isn't just the word but also the cultural concept of a more orderly and polite waiting.
And this is not simply a matter of curiosity; the language we use shapes our ability to recognise an issue, or as Doctrow suggests:
"Creating a common vocabulary is a necessary precondition for having the substantive, vital debates."
Enshittification captured something that was not commonly understood before Doctrow's newly created word, so the term does a lot of heavy lifting in conveying a set of political and social messages.
Therefore, if we are seeking to engage people, change mindsets, and create new outcomes, understanding the mechanisms behind the words we choose is essential. Without this, we are left in a state of awkwardness, where, without the necessary language, we simply do not have scripts in place that allow us to navigate topics successfully.
Language and power
If the scripts are not in place to have conversations, then we have a bunch of awkward topics that do not get aired. Miranda Fricker writes about this in her 2007 book, 'Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing', setting out how language and knowledge structures interact with power. She introduced the concept of 'hermeneutical injustice' to describe the wrong that occurs when marginalised groups cannot properly articulate their experiences because of gaps or shortcomings in the collective framework of how things are discussed. This reflects what psychologists Steve Slomanand Philip Fernbach more recently pointed out: knowledge is not something that only resides in our heads but sits between us. As they put it:
"Humans are the most complex and powerful species ever, not just because of what happens in individual brains, but because of how communities of brains work together."
This, of course, also means that the converse is true: when we fail to work together, this can be the source of collective failings, which falls disproportionately on marginalised groups,
Fricker uses the example of sexual harassment to illustrate this. Before the term ‘sexual harassment’ entered mainstream conversation, many women experienced unwanted advances or discriminatory behaviour but did not have the words to effectively describe it or call it out. Without the term, it meant their experiences were more easily dismissed, and they had few options to effectively communicate the impacts they were suffering. The introduction of the term ‘sexual harassment’ meant a conceptual tool was then available for women to both identify and articulate their experiences, which was an essential step for this issue to be taken more seriously and allow steps to be taken to change this behaviour.
Epistemic activism
Finding or even creating words to reflect concepts and experiences that are not properly represented in mainstream discourse, therefore, offers a route for bridging conceptual gaps and, with that, brings marginalised or little-understood issues to wider attention. The term that has been given to this by some is 'conceptual engineering'where philosophers like Herman Cappelen advocate for creating new concepts (with associated labels) when existing ones are inadequate.
An example of this is the concept of 'toxic positivity', a recently developed new term that refers to the pressure of maintaining a positive mindset at all times, even in the face of hardship. By naming this phenomenon, it is easier to see how there are societal expectations to be happy or optimistic, which can undermine genuine emotional challenges and lead to people not acknowledging their more difficult feelings. We can consider the work that is done to create the terms to bridge these gaps as a form of activism; this activism involves identifying the way power structures are reflected in the language we use and then identifying and seeking to popularise terms that challenge some of the dominant, often unspoken, narratives.
And this is an issue that does not purely sit within social activism. We can also see how brands carefully consider how they use language to capture a subtle new concept: for example, Patagonia coined the term "Worn Wear" to reflect the reusing and repairing of clothing rather than buying new items. Sportswear brand Lululemon has popularised the term 'athleisure', naming a concept of a previously unarticulated demand for versatile clothing that fits an active yet casual lifestyle. While these are, of course, not new ideas, the terms arguably make it easier to market and shape purchase decisions around a previously underdeveloped concept.
Epistemic fluency
When we have the absence of words or 'scripts' for discussing issues, whether sexual harassment, ethnicity, menopause or even clothing preferences, it also means we are unable to enact behaviours easily. For example, Ditte Maria Munch-Jurisic suggests a script that enables us to articulate emotions like anxiety in medicalised terms inclines us to seek help, whilst a script that conversely treats anxiety as a personal failing is likely only to increase the problem.
So, how might we facilitate this? There are a number of ways this can be done: professionals can offer language and guidance on how to talk about difficult and sensitive issues. For example, recent work undertaken by healthcare company Haleon where materials in pharmacies were designed to help prepare patients for a conversation with the pharmacists about the body pain they were experiencing. Social media also offers a means to do this, with research suggesting that online communities can help women navigate the often hard-to-articulate experiences of miscarriage.
Scripts, Power, and Privilege
Of course, the answer here is to allow an open conversation to take place, and together, people are able to explore and develop scripts. But it is not that simple, as scripts can also be tools we use to deny people access to certain social environments and subject matter. They become a form of 'privileged access' that can be tightly controlled. In the recent film Saltburn, an awkward moment occurs during a formal dinner at the family estate, where working-class student Oliver is surrounded by wealthy, well-connected guests. The conversation is effortless among the elite, referencing high-end art, luxury travel, and sophisticated cultural experiences. Oliver, coming from a much humbler background, sits in silence, unable to contribute and fumbles with his table manners, unfamiliar with the etiquette and codes that came naturally to everyone else.
This kind of exclusion isn't just about immediate awkwardness; it also limits access to social knowledge and skills that can only be learned through repeated exposure. For example, understanding the subtleties of a pause in conversation or a slight gesture often makes or breaks a social interaction. Yet, these cues are typically learned within environments where shared scripts are practised and passed down, leaving those without access disadvantaged. This ties into Kristie Dotson's concept of "contributory injustice." Dotson identifies how, through excluding social scripts, marginalised groups cannot contribute to the shared pool of knowledge or have their contributions recognised and valued. We can see how this leads to exclusionary cultures, again such as in the workplace that social psychologist Mary Murphy talks about when she references 'Cultures of Genius,' where the focus is mainly on the contributions of star performers, who are considered inherently more skilled than the wider workforce. By contrast, in 'Cultures of Growth,' positive mindsets are supported more widely, with the assumption that anyone in the organisation, given the right resources and structures in place, has the potential to contribute to success.
In her analysis of Fortune 500 businesses, she found that 'Culture of Growth' businesses, "which embrace learn-it-alls over know-it-alls," have more satisfied employees who collaborate and innovate better due to the growth mindset cultivated around them. This is a very tangible example of how contributory injustice harms us all.
Awkwardness as a Catalyst for Change
While the narrative so far is that awkwardness is more often something we aim to avoid, Plakias points out that it can also serve as a catalyst for social change. When social scripts are absent or unclear, awkwardness is a good reminder that the scripts available for these topics are not good enough. This indeed creates an opportunity for change to happen, as the awkwardness highlights the shortcomings of existing norms and the need for new language and concepts.
Given people will not be used to the new language and concepts, this requires someone with skill and confidence to take the conversational lead, and (to borrow Plakias' term) 'make a bid' to construct the script in a new way. For example, early conversations about mental health or sexual harassment were often met with discomfort and awkwardness, but over time, these conversations led to the creation of more inclusive and precise social scripts that better addressed these issues. The question comes, of course, about who 'owns' the awkwardness of that social situation. Plakias illustrates this with the case of gender identity, which has historically been thrust upon the person with the non-normative gender identity. If others can state their preferred pro-nouns then they 'own' the awkwardness, making it easier for those people with less normative gender identities.
Awkwardness, then, is a signal for the need to change and can be used by us all as a means to slow down and reflect on why a conversation feels uncomfortable. As Sara Ahmed points out in her work on ‘feminist killjoys,’ awkwardness is often a sign that someone is refusing to go along with established norms. The discomfort felt in these moments might be a barrier to change, but it can also be a sign that change is necessary. In this case, everyone knows that the sexist comment is unacceptable and that different ways of relating are required.
Thus, awkwardness should not always be avoided; it can serve as a signal to those in the conversation that there is a need for new social scripts. In these uncomfortable moments, conceptual engineering—the deliberate creation of new language and concepts—can be catalysed. This suggests, when handled thoughtfully, that awkwardness provides an opening to rethink traditional ways of interacting, presenting the chance to expand our collective understanding and create more inclusive and just social norms.
Conclusions
As behavioural practitioners seek to make change happen, it seems that awkwardness can at times have an important role to play. Both highlighting where our scripts are failing but also prompting us to identify new language and ways of communicating. In exploring this issue, we can see the interplay between our emotional states (of ease of discomfort), the social environment of adequate or inadequate scripts, and our conceptual grasp of issues all come together.
In a world of intense technological, political, economic, and climate disruption, we surely need new scripts and words to better articulate and conceptualise the ensuing challenges and experiences. For example, the term 'sostalgia' has steadily been gaining traction as a word to describe a future that was once available to past generations but is now lost for people living today.
As the world rapidly changes, there is a greater need for new concepts and 'assemblages' – and perhaps as we stumble around, finding that existing scripts simply do not do a good enough job, we are in an era of awkwardness. But rather than avoid this, there is surely a call to use that as a means to address the source of the awkwardness and find new language to reflect and navigate our changing lives.